Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment attempts to block a proposed rule that would protect LGBTQ youth in foster care. The foundation of our foster care system is that it must act only in ``the best interest of the child.'' Taking custody of a child is a last resort, a step the government should take only when there is no other way to keep a child safe. Federal law requires foster care agencies to ensure that each child in foster care receives ``safe and proper'' care and has a plan that addresses the specific needs of the child while in foster care to support their health and their well-being. The administration's proposed rule ensures ``safe and proper'' care for some of the most vulnerable youth in our foster care system. It would require a foster care agency to place an LGBTQ child in a home that is free of, again, ``hostility, abuse, or mistreatment'' based on their LGBTQ status and to provide appropriate training to their caregivers. That is all. Why wouldn't we want a child to be in an environment that is free of hostility, abuse, or mistreatment? Voting for this amendment would be voting to allow children who suffered abuse or neglect to be placed in homes where they are subject to hostility, abuse, or mistreatment. LGBTQ youth are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system, and they have disproportionately worse outcomes. They are more likely to be abused while in foster care. They are forced to change homes more often. They are more likely to be placed in institutions. They are more likely to run away from foster care. They have a higher suicide rate. Family and caregiver support is essential for the mental health of LGBTQ youth. To take one example, LGBTQ youth who feel high levels of social support report attempting suicide at less than half the rate of their peers who feel low or moderate levels of social support. It is unconscionable and disgraceful that anyone would try to make the child welfare system less safe for any youth, let alone the LGBTQ youth we know are especially vulnerable. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue my opposition of this amendment. LGBTQ youth in foster care are very vulnerable. Why do we not want them to be provided with safe and proper care, to be in an environment free of hostility, abuse, or mistreatment, based on that status. That is all this signifies. I am opposed to this amendment, which really attempts to block this rule that protects LGBTQ youth in foster care. Mr. Chair, I continue opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. This amendment is absurd and would bring the Medicare program to a standstill. If this amendment were to be enacted, Health and Human Services would be prohibited from finalizing rules for paying physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, or any other healthcare supplier or provider--which would throw the Medicare program into chaos. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't really like Medicare, but now they want to throw it into chaos. By law, Medicare issues annual rules that govern how it runs the programs and pays for services that Medicare beneficiaries need. These rules are always major rules of over $100 million, and they happen by law several times a year so that Medicare beneficiaries know the rules of the programs and providers know how they will get paid for the upcoming year. If this amendment were enacted, Medicare would not be able to pay physicians or hospitals for new services. Medicare would not be able to pay for new drugs or devices. Medicare would not be able to pay rural hospitals that depend on Medicare to stay open to serve beneficiaries in rural areas. These rules always exceed $100 million because they govern how Medicare pays for services for its 60 million beneficiaries. In short, this amendment would cause a massive disruption to healthcare for millions of seniors and individuals with disabilities. The amendment is not a serious policy proposal. It really is a campaign slogan. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose this. The information--I just didn't make it up. I don't know where the gentlewoman's information is coming from. This came from the Ways and Means Committee. I am not making it up. It is not anecdotal. If the amendment would be enacted, Medicare would not be able to pay physicians or hospitals for new services. Medicare would not be able to pay for new drugs and devices. It would not be able to pay rural hospitals that depend on Medicare to stay open to serve beneficiaries in rural areas. These rules exceed $100 million. They govern how Medicare pays for the services for these 60 million beneficiaries. We have that information. I do not know where the gentlewoman has received her information. I suspect maybe there is a misunderstanding of the scope and the reach of CMS and its oversight of Medicare beneficiaries and the services that they need. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The underlying bill already cuts Program Administration at the Department of Education by $77 million or 18 percent. This amendment would slash another $38 million from this account, bringing the total cut to $115 million or a stunning 27 percent. The Program Administration account funds the Federal civil servants who provide grants to States. If your State is looking for a grant, these are the folks that are going to help you. School districts--if your school district is looking for a grant, these folks are going to help you--and institutes of higher education. These staff answer questions and provide vital funding to communities across the country. This amendment fits with others like it. Let's face it, the underlying bill where there is a 28 percent cut, the goal is to dismantle public education and higher education in the United States of America so that working people, middle-class families, and vulnerable families have fewer economic opportunities. This denies Americans the opportunity for an education. This amendment takes glee in breaking the Department of Education by decimating the nonpolitical career staff that administers its vital programs. This is plain wrong. Vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is another in the list of what I call the list of particulars taking public education to the graveyard. There is this new one right now by the gentleman from Arizona. He had an earlier one which cuts education--this is it; this is his $38 million in cuts. It slashes Pell Grant funding. It eliminates funding to give out Pell Grants and collect student loans. It eliminates funding for HBCUs, MSIs, Tribal colleges, TRIO, and GEAR UP. It eliminates education research funding and eliminates the salary of the Education Secretary. This is on top of the underlying bill with a 28 percent cut. Do I make my point? The Republican majority is looking to eliminate public education in the United States of America. That is not a very noble goal. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to be opposed to this amendment. Nevertheless, we keep hearing that Grand Canyon University has 86,000 students online. Once again, let me repeat that they are a nonprofit, but they deal with for-profit companies. What they do is they are ripping off students. They are ripping them off. That is something that we need to really take a very hard look at because they are predators with young people. They make a ton of money, and they don't provide the services, education, or opportunities for employment after that. We have people here who are all over these so-called nonprofits that are really in league with profitmaking companies that are raking in tons of dollars at the expense of our students. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment prohibits the use of funds to require any institution of higher education to enforce any COVID-19 vaccine mandate. This is the second and third time I have repeated this. Let us be clear that there is no Federal requirement that any institution of higher education put a COVID vaccine mandate in place. Now, the university could easily have its own immunization policy that is part of its immunization strategy. However, no one from the Federal Government is forcing universities to enforce any COVID-19 vaccine mandate. There is no one. I find what is really interesting here is that I am told all the time, especially with regard to education, that government should not be interfering with education and educational institutions. They should be doing what they want to do, and the Federal Government should stay out. Now, all of a sudden, what we are going to do is prohibit the use of funds to require any institution of higher education to enforce any COVID-19 vaccine amendments where there is no Federal requirement to enforce a vaccine amendment. It really is pretty preposterous here. Let me just step back. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, or dying. Vaccination remains a safer strategy for avoiding hospitalizations, long-term health outcomes, and death. COVID vaccination reduces the risk of death by at least 75 percent. Getting a COVID-19 vaccine is a safer and more reliable way to build protection than getting sick with COVID-19. For those who have had COVID, vaccines offer added protection against being hospitalized for a new infection. New variants are an expected part of the evolution of viruses and can be more aggressive and transmittable or cause more severe disease than the original strain. Vaccines continue to be our best line of defense. Scientific experts have determined the COVID vaccines to be safe and effective, and hundreds of millions of doses have been administered in the United States. We should not place restrictions like those of this amendment when we say we do not want interference from the Federal Government. Imagine that we talk about the Federal Government in curricula. We certainly don't want to do that, and we don't. However, the Republican majority now wants to impose a restriction on institutions of higher education regarding the tools that they use in their own best interest to protect the health and safety of their students. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. One more time, to be clear, there is no Federal mandate for vaccines. There is no mandate. There is no Federal Government forcing a university to have a vaccine mandate. If you want to vote for freedom, Mr. Chairman, then allow the university to do what it would like. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment would block funding for two research grants funded by the National Institutes of Health. NIH grants are funded after a vigorous peer review process to identify the most promising research proposals. In this case, the Congressman from Arizona has identified research grants to study bat coronavirus as well as zoonotic virus emergence in Southeast Asia. Given the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, I would argue that we really do need to understand more about bat coronavirus as well as zoonotic virus emergence in Southeast Asia. I will tell you; I am not in the medical profession. I am not a scientist. I believe in the research. I believe that we need to take a look at things, given what we have heard anyway. Again, I am not a scientist, but I believe in research and we need to understand more about bat coronavirus, zoonotic virus. Coronavirus and zoonotic viruses are not going to disappear if we stop funding research. Why are we research deniers? Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I say to the gentleman, my colleague and friend, I will refer to my earlier remarks on a similar amendment from the Congresswoman from Florida. This amendment would bring Medicare operations to a standstill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I am hoping that the gentleman will make good on a muffuletta. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, the gentleman and I agree on muffulettas, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement, promote, or enforce the recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the child and adolescent immunization schedule of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. This amendment would set a dangerous precedent for Congress to overrule the scientific process used in determining eligible vaccines for children. The amendment would interfere with the work and purpose of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, CDC's Federal advisory committee, which develops recommendations on the use of vaccines in the civilian population of the United States. The advisory committee is comprised of medical and public health experts who make recommendations that include the ages when the vaccine should be given, the number of doses needed, the amount of time between doses, and precautions and contraindications. Before recommending any vaccine, the advisory committee considers many factors, including the safety and the effectiveness of the vaccine. CDC sets the U.S. adult and childhood immunization schedules based on these recommendations. The COVID-19 vaccine has already been added to the CDC immunization schedules based on recommendations from the advisory committee. This amendment would undermine CDC's ability to engage in its ongoing immunization work, including the safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. Kids may be less likely to get COVID, but why wouldn't we want to continue to protect them? For immunity sake, we need to protect the entire population to be able to protect everyone. I oppose this amendment due to its interference with the scientific process that is used in determining eligible vaccines for children. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment prohibits the use of funds to enforce any COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Okay, one more time, let's be clear. There is not a COVID vaccine mandate in place. I will repeat, there is not a COVID vaccine mandate in place. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying. Vaccination remains the safest strategy for avoiding hospitalizations, long-term health outcomes, and death. COVID vaccination reduces the risk of death by at least 75 percent. Getting a COVID-19 vaccine is safer and a more reliable way to build protection than getting sick with COVID-19. For those who have had COVID, vaccines offer added protection against being hospitalized from a new infection. There are new variants that are expected as part of the evolution of viruses, and those could be more aggressive, transmittable, or cause more serious or severe disease than the original strain. Vaccines continue to be our best line of defense. Scientific experts have determined the COVID vaccines to be safe and effective, and hundreds of millions of doses have been administered in the United States. Our Nation's public health officials need to have options to protect our communities. As we continue to live with COVID, we should not be limiting the use of our most effective public health tool. This amendment would set a dangerous precedent for Congress to overrule the scientific process. Although many people would like to act like COVID is over, it is not. More than a million people have died due to COVID in the United States. We all have lost someone. Why isn't it understandable in terms of some of these amendments that there is no COVID vaccine mandate in place? What are we speaking about here? Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Public service should be commended and not demonized. Our Federal Government needs talented, intelligent, hardworking people who are willing to bring their skills, expertise, compassion, and experience to public service. Proposing to eliminate the salaries of hardworking public servants is petty and beneath the dignity of this body, and it is not how we should solve differences of opinion on policy. Admiral Levine--I repeat--Admiral Levine is the head of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. That is one of the eight uniformed services in the United States. A physician, she completed her training in pediatrics and adolescent health at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. The focus of her medical career has been the interaction between mental and physical health, particularly for children and adolescents. Imagine the knowledge, expertise, study, and commitment of Admiral Levine. Given the ongoing mental health crisis in this country, particularly with children and adolescents, I am grateful and in awe of her expertise and service. Prior to joining the Biden administration, Admiral Levine served as Pennsylvania physician general and secretary of health. My God, what a background. She is highly qualified for her position, and I say to her tonight that I commend her efforts to improve the health of Americans across this country. Let's be honest. The Congresswoman from Georgia submitted this amendment to target the salary of a transgender health official. It is as simple as that. It is ugly. It is disgraceful. I ask whoever is watching of the American people and everyone in this body to note the date and time when the Republicans in the House of Representatives have hit a new low. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this vindictive amendment offered to target the salary of a qualified transgender health official who has the expertise and knowledge to address health issues in a way that many in this body are unable to do. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.