Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, in a breathtaking and a radical step, the Republican majority has proposed to eliminate title X funding which has connected millions of American women to health care since 1970.
In 2009, title X funding provided 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2 million Pap tests, and nearly 1 million HIV tests to men and women both. This Republican Congress is trying to turn back the clock on women's health and turn back the clock on women's basic rights. They are taking us back to a day when family planning was not a given opportunity for women.
In Connecticut, more than 62,000 men and women benefit from care at title X-funded health centers each year. Over 70 percent of them have a family income of less than $16,245 a year. In other words, this is the only way they can afford health care. In fact, six of every 10 women who seek care at a title X-funded center consider it their main source of medical care. Yet the majority is trying to take these important services away.
It is argued that we need to cut title X services to reduce the deficit. This is simply not true. For every dollar invested in title X, taxpayers save just under $4. The fact of the matter is that vital preventive care and family planning services supported by title X save money and save lives.
Make no mistake, cutting title X funding is a breathtaking and a radical step. The majority is using the guise of budget cutting to launch an assault on title X, which would endanger women's health. Understanding their purpose has nothing to do with the deficit. They want to impose their traditional view of a woman's role.
Let's get real. This legislation is not about Federal funding for abortion. Federal funds, including title X, are already banned from going toward abortion services under the Hyde amendment. Rather, much like the repeal of health care reform, this is part of an agenda to force women back into traditional roles with limited opportunities. Under their proposal, more than 5 million people lose access to basic primary and preventive health care. As a cancer survivor myself, who is only here today because my cancer was found at stage I, I can tell you, losing access to screenings will cost lives.
It comes down to this: The proposal to eliminate title X is a bad policy. It will hurt women and do nothing for our economy. It costs money. Instead of making it harder for women to get health care, we should be standing up for these vital services.
The American public called for job creation and turning our economy around last November. I believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not heeded that call. This bill will do nothing to create jobs nor reduce the deficit.
On behalf of women, on behalf of middle class and working families we represent, I urge my colleagues to leave this extreme and divisive social agenda out of the picture of support. We should not be playing games with women's health and with basic rights.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I am really intrigued by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have made the determination to cut LIHEAP by $390 million, a decision that, in fact, wasn't important enough to consider the well-being of people, whether they are in the Northeast, whether they are in the Midwest, or whether they are in other parts of the country which have very tough winters. So now what they would want to do is take money from other worthy programs that, in fact, they have cut but would further cut.
In the instance of Mr. Bass's amendment, he would reduce the money from SAMHSA. That is the money for substance abuse and mental illness. What it does is help to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental illness on America's communities by focusing its services on the people who are in most need. It translates research, and makes it useful and more effective so that we can get this into the general health care system.
How do you treat addiction? How do you treat mental illness? Very difficult issues.
So they would take that money, but they have cut LIHEAP, low-income energy assistance, which, for the most part, we are looking at low-income people. Then if it's applied to seniors, what they will do is they won't cook their food at the right temperature, which will put their health in jeopardy. They will buy space heaters, potentially, which will put their lives in jeopardy.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really cared about low-income energy assistance, they wouldn't have started to make their cuts there. They would have moved to the $40 billion in subsidies for oil and gas. They would have moved elsewhere to look for this funding. What they would have done is cut back on the subsidies for special interests to do that.
It is a bit disingenuous, and it robs Peter to pay Paul; but I believe that that's the nature of what this unfixable bill is all about.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to the Flake amendment and to the Republican cuts of the Community Service Block Grant.
Mr. Chairman, there isn't any question that Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. We believe we should start by ending the tax subsidies and special interest waste. We also must make sure that programs are accountable and that we end those that do not work.
But what we have here is a program that serves as nothing short of a lifeline. It provides assistance to our Nation's poorest families, families who are trying to meet the most basic of human needs. We have the latest Census data, which tells us that more than 43.7 million people are living in poverty in the United States. That number is growing.
A striking point is that many in this category are hardworking Americans who have, in fact, been making it; yet some may refer to them now as the ``new poor.'' In this Great Recession, life has changed very quickly for so many American families who have first lost their jobs and then lost their homes. The majority of Americans served by this program can be described as extremely poor, with incomes below 75 percent of the Federal poverty threshold. That's $9,735 for a family of three. That's the average size: $9,735.
Is that what we make in this institution here, $9,735? You know what, Mr. Chairman? We'd be hard-pressed to find a corner of our Nation that doesn't feel the impact of these severe cuts. The service areas of Community Action Agencies cover 96 percent of the Nation's counties.
I just might add that not so long ago this body voted for a tax increase for the richest 2 percent of the people in this Nation, providing them with $100,000 in tax cuts--the richest 2 percent of the people in this country as opposed to people who make $9,735. Now, if we really want to be serious about that deficit, let's start with several items.
Let's go to the oil subsidies of $40 billion over 5 years and eliminate 10 tax breaks for the oil companies. Let's start there. What about ending what they call ``treaty shopping,'' which would be a $7.4 billion savings over 10 years? Let's shut down the current practice that allows multinationals to avoid paying their taxes. I think that's a good idea that we ought to implement. That certainly is un-American if they're not going to pay their taxes.
As for other savings, why don't we cut agricultural subsidies in half and save almost $8 billion? We can do that. We could save $3 billion a year if we ended the licensing agreements in which pharmaceutical companies pay competitors to slow the introduction of cheaper generic drugs. That raises the cost of health care for all of us. Then we could immediately save $450 million and almost $3 billion if we stop spending on the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.
It's very interesting. Those total about $61 billion, which is the size of the cuts that the other side of this venerable House has proposed we cut: K-12 education for the neediest people in this Nation and the National Institutes of Health, which provide the opportunity to look for groundbreaking discoveries to cure disease.
One should really be opposed to this amendment for what it would do to the most vulnerable people of this Nation. It is effectively a 100 percent cut. It is again the example of how the Republican resolution hits those who can afford it least.
With 9 percent unemployment in our country, this is not the time to be cutting critical services. These are services in local communities to help low-income families get on their feet. The issues are child care, job training, nutrition. The money goes to nonprofit agencies, to the Boys and Girls Club, to Habitat for Humanity, to Feeding America, to hundreds of local faith-based churches and synagogues, to the United Way, and to Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
I urge defeat of the Flake amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Providing a quality education for all students, including those with disabilities, should be one of our highest priorities. So I agree with the goal of this amendment.
But, in fact, we are considering a Republican resolution, this continuing resolution this evening, and it's the majority party, to which the gentlewoman belongs, which cuts IDEA. It cuts special education by $558 million. So now we have an amendment that attempts to undo the damaging cuts to IDEA, but only by cutting other critical education programs. The damage done in this bill cannot be alleviated by robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's what this amendment is about.
Let me just mention to you that--and our colleague spoke about special education and what it does. But $558 million is where they come from with regard to education for special needs kids. What that means is almost 7,000 special education teachers and aides and other staff who serve these youngsters would not be there. And it is critical. Teachers and staff are critical to the education of these youngsters. As a matter of fact, the Federal Government mandates that local school districts have to provide this education. And when it was determined that that would be the case, it said that the States would do 60 percent, the Federal Government would do 40 percent.
What's happened now is we've been at about 17 percent in terms of Federal contribution. With the $558 million cut we go down to about 15 percent.
I would suggest that if there is such a great urgent need and a great burning desire to be able to provide education to special needs children, that we do not cut $558 million.
Now, where does the money come from? As I mentioned, we're talking about other critical education programs. School improvement grants. I venture to say that everybody is concerned about those schools that are failing, that there's got to be student achievement at these schools. And that's what the current Federal law requires, that there's demonstrable success in student achievement. The funds for the school improvement grants are appropriated precisely for those schools that fail the test and are seeking to implement a strategy for turning around our Nation's lowest-performing schools. That's where we would take money from in order to turn a potentially failing school, to turn around so that they can go from the lowest-performing to better-performing schools.
The other place that my colleague takes funds from is something called the Teacher Quality Grants, an approximately $3 billion program and a major piece of No Child Left Behind. This provides funds to States and school districts to develop and support a high quality teacher force.
Aren't we all about making sure that those people who teach our children are qualified to do that? These funds are distributed by formula to all States. They are relied upon tremendously to reduce class size, to ensure that classroom teachers have the proper training and credentials to be effective instructors.
There isn't a day that goes by that we aren't talking about school reform, and at the center of school reform is to develop quality teachers. And, in fact, we want to try to link merit pay to quality teachers, do everything we can, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to take the money for school improvement grants, teacher quality grants.
I suggest to you that what you do, if you are really truly interested in educating special needs children, that you decide that a $558 million cut is just not the right thing to do to children who have these special needs and who are mandated by the Federal Government to States to get the kind of training that they need to achieve their level and realize their dreams and aspirations.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the current definition of an earmark as defined by this body, the two programs that the gentleman is seeking to restore are both earmarks.
Alaskan native education and native Hawaiian education programs are worthy programs, there is no doubt in my mind, and I believe the overall purpose of both is to ensure that the unique educational needs of Alaskan and Hawaiian natives are met. Clearly we all want the same for our constituents. But I think we have to be clear about what these programs are. They are earmarks with a pricetag that approaches $70 million.
Now, this majority has been very proud of their policy to ban all earmarks. If I might, I would like to just read from the comments of the chair of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, in his summary for the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution.
``The continuing resolution includes no earmark funding and eliminates all previous earmark funding from fiscal year 2010, saving the taxpayers approximately $8.5 billion. In addition, the bill includes language specifically negating any and all earmarks as defined by House rules.''
Again, as I say, this majority has been very, very proud of their policy to ban all earmarks. That is why, really, the decision by my Republican colleague from Alaska is therefore hard to understand, and the support that the majority is providing for this amendment is hard to understand. But I think it is clear evidence that the status quo remains when it comes to special favors and when it comes to special interests.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my colleague and friend, I might add, and my friends here, that this in fact is in the same category of a program as Teach for America, the National Writing Project, and other projects, just to name a couple, that have been designated by the majority as earmarks. This is the same category of programs. We cannot be talking about a series of programs on the one hand which are categorized as earmarks and then the other the same, in the same breath, then say these, because they are of specific interest to me or anyone else, that in fact then they are not.
If the majority is going to be true to it's principle--and it has been a very, very defined principle. It's one which I quoted specifically the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who made a special point of letting not only us but the country know that earmarks were not going to be a part of this continuing resolution. I did not say that. I have not stood here and made a claim that the problem with spending in this country is about earmarks and they should all be gone.
Now you either have to define the earmarks, stick to your definition and your principle, or don't. And then let's talk about Teach for America, the Writing Project, and the others that have been categorized as earmarks. Let's have a level playing field.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. This is amazing. What a step backward for democracy if there was support for this bill. This amendment would actually eliminate all funding for the National Labor Relations Board.
The NLRB has been in existence for 75 years. Its functions are to protect the rights of workers to unionize or not unionize; to promote peaceful, productive relations between labor and management. It conducts secret ballot elections to determine whether workers want to be represented by a union. It investigates, it resolves complaints of unfair labor practices that are brought against both unions and employers. It protects workers from retaliation from exercising their rights. These functions are fundamental to democracy and a workplace. Why do we want to throw out the entire system with nothing to replace it?
If the amendment were adopted, what would take the place of the NLRB in determining workers' preferences about unionization? If workers are fired for joining a union, where would they go for a remedy?
The continuing resolution itself is bad enough as far as the NLRB is concerned. It cuts the board's budget by $50 million, an 18 percent cut to be made in the last 6 months of the year. So it really winds up being a 36 percent cut. It would have to furlough employees to get through the rest of the year, furloughs that could be as much as 3 months per each employee. Now, these are folks who want to really create jobs, and now we are going to lay off people. In other words, the CR has crippled already the ability of the board to protect workers' rights. It's simply about protecting workers' rights, and to shut down the board completely truly is a backwards step for democracy.
I urge the defeat of the amendment. And I certainly hope whatever the final appropriations legislation for 2011 ultimately emerges will ensure that the NLRB has enough funding to continue to do its job.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. I appreciate the comments from my colleague from New York.
Madam Chair, I think that one thing that comes out, the clarity that comes out of tonight's debate on this bill, is to look at what, in fact, the American people have asked us to do. They have asked us to truly work together to address what their top priority is, which is creating jobs and fostering economic recovery.
Again, as we listen to this debate that unfolded tonight, what we see is that, unfortunately, the majority's priorities are deeply out of touch with those of the country. Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. We believe that we start by ending tax subsidies and special interest waste. We need to make programs accountable and end the ones that will not work.
But the challenge is not whether we address the deficit and spending, or not to do that. The question is: Where do we start? Do we start with slashing special interest waste and ineffective programs, or do we start with what helps the middle class, our businesses, our working families, with children, and with seniors?
We could have achieved cuts. We could have achieved cuts in spending in this continuing resolution.
It was where the majority decided to start to make cuts. What about those oil subsidies that we spoke about tonight, $40 billion over 5 years, and eliminating the 10 tax breaks for the oil companies? What about the $7.4 billion we can save over 10 years by shutting down the current practice that allows multinational corporations to avoid paying their taxes? What about cutting agriculture subsidies in half and saving $8 billion? What about the $3 billion a year we can save by saying to the pharmaceutical companies that you can no longer pay to delay in order for us to get cheaper generic drugs to market because it raises the cost of health care?
Let's do away with the $3 billion that we want to spend on an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's about $61 billion. That is approximately the amount of money that you are taking out of K-12 education, Pell grants where you lower the amount of maximum award that people could get, 9 million people trying to get an education, trying to be able to get that education in order to be able to get a job and to go to work, take care of their family, pay their taxes, and do the right thing. You say no.
Another 1.3 million, you say no to the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant so that they can no longer get education. You take 218,000 kids off of Head Start. You lay off 55,000 teachers, you close down centers around the country, and you don't give youngsters the opportunity for early childhood education, and we know that that succeeds.
You tell seniors, up to 10 million, meals will no longer be served to you because you're a homebound elder, you can't get out. We're not going to do anything about low-income energy assistance for you--you're on your own.
It is, in fact, Washington to the country: Drop dead, is what you're saying to them, and all because there is no courage, no courage at all to go after the special interests and the tax subsidies that could overwhelmingly pay for the cuts that we need in order to be able to bring down the deficit.
That is what's wrong with this bill tonight. The issue is where do you start. Do you start to cut in that reckless rush to slash without regard to the impact on our economy, without regard for our businesses to create jobs, or the middle class or working families who are being responsible? They're doing the best for their families today. They're trying to educate themselves for the future. You are hitting families with children and the elderly, and that is your starting point. It is not our starting point. Therein lies the difference of Democrats and Republicans in this continuing resolution debate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source