Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 3 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 1 minute.
This amendment prohibits use of funds in this act for any government contract that includes a Project Labor Agreement. The amendment is nothing more than another example of a union-busting Republican agenda.
Project Labor Agreements contribute to the economy and efficiency of Federal construction projects, help keep them on time and on budget. They bring all the contractors and subcontractors to agree to a standard set of conditions from the beginning of the project. And despite all the rhetoric on the other side that PLAs increase the cost of construction projects, there is no evidence for that.
Two years ago, the Economic Policy Institute reviewed a series of studies for and against prevailing wage laws and concluded that there was no adverse impact on government contract costs.
Mr. Chairman, this is nothing else but a distraction. PLAs are nothing new. They have been used on some of the most famous consequential construction projects in our history: the Hoover dam bypass bridge and the projects under the Tennessee Valley Authority just to name a few.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 3 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 1 1/2 minutes.
Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, countless Americans would buy coverage they thought was comprehensive only to realize that it had huge gaps once they actually got sick. Even when the plans look similar from the outside, with comparable deductibles, copays, and so-called out-of-pocket limits, they can result in drastically different levels of out-of-pocket medical expenses, which is probably why more than 50 percent of bankruptcies in this country are because of medical debt.
The Affordable Care Act created the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight to provide better information to consumers, to hold insurers accountable at the Federal level, and help States with oversight responsibility. It requires insurance to provide clear information to consumers on what is really in their policy, such as standard definitions of medical and insurance terms, because hospitalization should mean hospitalization. It requires insurance to disclose data on claims payment policies and practices, claims denial rates, medical loss ratio, and other information so that consumers can make informed choices and so regulators can make sure the rules are followed.
It's also responsible for confirming that the insurance companies get approval to raise rates by more than medical inflation. In short, it dramatically increases transparency and accountability in the health insurance market.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Why wouldn't we want consumers to know what they are buying so that they don't go broke, that they get the health care that they need when they are sick?
Quite frankly, what this does is to help keep the big insurers honest, and that's probably why the majority has put the desires of the insurance companies and the interests of the insurance companies before the well-being of the American public.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 3 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I must say that I think I'm in the movie "Groundhog Day." How many times do we have to vote to defund the Affordable Care Act in one day?
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will stop the implementation of essential health benefits. These rules will ensure that a minimum level of quality health coverage will be covered by plans available on the exchanges. We are talking about benefits related to things like hospitalization, emergency services, maternity care, newborn care, mental health care. This ensures that every plan on the exchange meets minimum standards. It protects individuals and small businesses. It allows them to pick out their plans with the confidence that they will be able to get the adequate kinds of coverage that they need.
Why does the majority want to stand between consumers and the information they need?
I urge my colleagues to please oppose this amendment.
I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 20 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to administer the wage rate requirements under Davis-Bacon. It is yet another illustration of how the majority is making this continuing resolution a Trojan Horse, filled with ideology that irreparably harms working families.
The Davis-Bacon Act ensures that workers on federally funded government contracts are paid no less than the wages paid for similar work in a community. A simple concept. Former President Bush understood this concept when he reinstated the Davis-Bacon rules for reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Despite the majority's argument, the Davis-Bacon Act has no effect on total costs of construction. Study after study reveals that higher productivity makes up for any additional labor cost, essentially eliminating any cost savings if the law were repealed. If this amendment is enacted into law, we will be cheating workers of a fair wage with no cost savings to show for it.
This amendment is nothing more than an attempt to accelerate a race to the bottom. It is that way of doing business which tells workers in this country "you do not matter; your right to a decent wage does not matter; your dreams and your aspirations to do better and to provide for your family do not matter."
All that counts is the power to extract the cheapest possible cost, the lowest labor cost, in return for the highest possible profit. This does not reflect our values as a Nation and certainly not the values that created America's middle class.
Today, as we face 9 percent unemployment, wages falling, the number of families in poverty growing and increasing costs for just about everything, gutting the law that ensures a decent job and a fair wage for workers is the wrong direction. It is the very future of the middle class that is in jeopardy if we pass amendments like the King amendment and, with it, the idea that a society can act with a shared sense of purpose and with a responsibility to each other.
Vote against this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 3 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Just to make a point, it sounds from the gentlelady like what you want to do is raise the Medicare rates and cut benefits--but let me just get on with this here.
How many times, as I said earlier, do we have to vote on the Affordable Care Act? This long series of "defunding health reform" amendments shows how far the House is straying from a serious legislative process. So far today, the House has passed no fewer than three separate, overlapping and duplicative amendments that prohibit the use of funds to carry out the Affordable Care Act.
First, the House passed the Rehberg amendment: prohibiting the use of funds for this purpose by any agency funded in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. A few minutes later, the House passed an amendment by Mr. King: prohibiting the use of funds by any Federal agency for this purpose. A few minutes after that vote, the House passed another amendment by Mr. King: prohibiting funds to pay the salary of any Federal employee to implement or administer the Affordable Care Act.
The majority party does not like the Affordable Care Act, and would like to cut off all funding for the act's implementation--now that much is clear--but how many times do we need to pass the same prohibition yesterday and today? Will three times be enough or will the House just keep passing more and more amendments, doing essentially the same thing until everyone on the majority's side has satisfied their urge to make clear just how opposed they are to expanding the availability of health care in this country?--which is what the Affordable Care Act is all about.
Instead of this pointless debate, we should be working on what the American public wants. They want us to create jobs. They want us to get this economy going again. They want to make sure that they have jobs, that they're able to send their children to school--and yes, they would like to have health care benefits so that, when they get sick, they will be able to have the kinds of treatment that all of us in this body have by virtue of being Members of the Congress.
We go to the head of the line. They can't get the same kind of care that we get.
Yet, day in and day out over these last several days, we've watched our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do everything they can to deny the American public the opportunity to have the same kind of health care that Members of Congress have.
I urge a "no" vote on this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source