Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, this continuing resolution keeps the government open while the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate continue bipartisan negotiations on the final 2024 funding bills that are in line with the agreement that we have had since last June. I am so encouraged by the conversations that have taken place since the top-line numbers were reaffirmed. I appreciate the good faith and respectful four-corner negotiation that took place to put forward this continuing resolution. My hope is that the current pace and tone will result in swiftly finalizing all of the 2024 funding bills in a bipartisan fashion because that is what we are here to do. That is our job to govern. That is what the American people expect of us. Some of my colleagues would see that this government would shut down and don't care how hurtful that would be. I have a quick story to share. Today, on my way to a meeting in the CVC, a young woman who I see just about every day, called me over and with fear in her face, she said to me: Are you going to keep the government open? I said: We are. She said: Thank you. You don't know how stressed we all are and fearful of what will happen to our jobs and our families. Some of my colleagues would like to see a government shutdown because we don't pay a price. We don't give up our salaries. Maybe if we did, people would have a different view, but that young woman knows that if this government shuts down, she will not be able to take care of her family. That is what people should be thinking about in this body this afternoon. Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues, let's do what is right for the American people and the people who work in this institution and who work in agencies all over this country. They need to know that we can govern, that we want to govern, and that we know how to govern. I believe that is possible in a bipartisan way. I have seen it in the past. I look forward to proceeding now. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was attending a bipartisan meeting at the White House with the President to discuss funding needs for our national security. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 12.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided United States of America v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP). Issuing a groundbreaking decision granting standing to five law students from George Washington Law School to sue the United States Government under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). With a nearly unanimous decision written by the oft described strict constitutionalist, Justice Potter Stewart, SCRAP was the first full- court consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). What is perhaps most interesting about SCRAP is that it was wholly taken on by law students. Professor John F. Banzhaf, to the consternation of traditionalists in legal education, encouraged students to identify problematic corporate and regulatory agency relationships and to engage and challenge them in practical, real terms on their own turf. Led by then 3rd-year law student and New Haven native, Neil Thomas Proto, the five law students began their journey in December 1971 with the filing of a petition in the ICC that sought a one billion dollar refund for the failure of the commission to comply with NEPA in approving a twenty percent rate increase that SCRAP claimed discriminated against the movement of recyclable materials by favoring the movement of raw materials. I have had the good fortune to know Neil Proto for many years. Following the successful litigation of SCRAP, Neil went on to a distinguished career in law. In his later years he has also taught, lectured and written about his experiences. In 2006, he authored To A High Court, Five Bold Law Students Challenge Corporate Greed and Change the Law in which he provides a provides a first-person account of what he and his classmates dared to take on. It should come as no surprise that some on the Court have sought to water down and at time outright overturn this precedent setting decision. Just this year, in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of this landmark decision, Neil has published a revised and updated anniversary edition. This new edition has been recently recognized as a ''Gold Winner'' by the Nonfiction Author's Association. There are some stories that are worth repeating--and repeating often. The story of SCRAP is one of them as it provides important lessons, not only for students of law but for policymakers and advocates alike. I am honored to have this opportunity to congratulate Neil Thomas Proto on this triumph and extend my very best wishes for continued success.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment would block implementation of guidance issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in October to apply to all employees and applicants of HHS agencies. The guidance simply says that HHS is a workplace that does not allow for discrimination against employees based on gender, including gender identity. It is the policy of the Federal Government to treat all of its applicants and employees with dignity and respect and to provide a workplace that is free from discrimination and intolerance. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. The HHS guidance issued in October follows guidance issued by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, in March of this year. The Federal Government needs to set an example. We have a responsibility to ensure that all employees are able to work in a safe environment free from discrimination, from intolerance, from bullying, all of those things, and I would add that all Federal employees should be guaranteed a respectful environment. This is basic human decency. We cannot--and we should not--stand for discrimination in any form, and this amendment would seek to promote discrimination. Please, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, again, basic human decency. Let's embrace people wherever they are, whoever they are. Let's not allow for a workplace, particularly at the Federal level, that allows discrimination, intolerance, bullying or making people feel they are less than a human being, less than an individual who deserves love and respect. That has to be starting from the top at the Federal level. We need to set an example. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Department of Labor first started working to prevent silica- related diseases in the 1930s. The Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, the first woman Secretary of Labor in the United States, launched a major campaign to stop silicosis deaths in this country. In 2016, the Department issued a long-needed standard to protect workers against deadly silica dust, which causes silicosis and leads to a very painful death. Silica dust causes silicosis and lung cancer. Unfortunately, the exposures, deaths, and diseases continue, which is why the Mine Safety and Health Administration proposed new rules to strengthen miners' protection from silica. Once again, this is about workers' lives, but it would appear that: Who cares? The miners are expendable. The new rule lowers exposure limits from breathable crystalline silica in coal, metal, and nonmetal mines. In addition, the rule would provide the same medical surveillance protection that coal miners receive to all miners in metal and nonmetal mines. Unfortunately, this amendment would halt our country's steady progress in combating silicosis and other fatal health conditions by blocking the Department of Labor's efforts to save miners' lives-- again, a theme throughout the amendments that we have heard on this floor tonight. All put at risk the lives of men, women, and children in this country. Hard to believe that my colleagues would not be interested in saving lives rather than making these lives expendable. 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 oppose this amendment. I think one of the pieces of information I just found out is that miners will die a lot younger from silicosis. I have to think about the logic that my colleague mentioned, that if we put this rule into effect that the mines will close, but having dead miners will somehow keep the mines open? The miners are not there. It would just seem to me that it is a cost-benefit analysis here. Let's put the rule into place, let's save miners, and let's let the mine thrive, instead of no rule, no miners, closed mines. There's no logic. Mr. Chair, 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. This amendment is yet another effort by the House Republican majority to curtail the rights of workers, many of whom are living paycheck-to- paycheck in order to enrich the big businesses and corporations that they serve. The amendment blocks the National Labor Relations Board's new election rules, which will reduce unnecessary delays in the union election process. This allows employees to realize their free choice of representation more quickly, and if a majority supports the union, get parties to the bargaining table, and it does not subject employees to intimidation by employers. The previous board, which answered to their allies at big corporations, drafted election rules in 2019 that were struck down by the D.C. circuit. So those unlawful rules were already struck down under the current board. This amendment would prevent the board from finishing the process of restoring the prior rules that have already been held up by the Federal courts. A point to be made: It is the unions who created the middle class in this country. It is the unions that have provided a work week, a safe workplace, increased wages, and I might add that unions benefit nonunion workers, as well. It has been demonstrated in the auto industry in terms of salary. This is just another attempt to deny people the ability to form a union, to have collective bargaining rights, and to be able to determine what kind of representation they need and that they want in the workplace. It is about getting to the bargaining table and making sure that workers' rights are respected and honored in this country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I think it was the National Labor Relations Act, and I think it may have been Franklin Roosevelt who dealt with the National Labor Relations Board. Do you know how many union elections--I will tell you about one in the city of New Haven. The graduate students at Yale University, who I worked with for several years, were shot down by the NLRB year after year after year, maybe for 6 or 7 years, until finally last year, they were able to be able to form the union. Now the issue is how are they going to be able to deal with the first contract and bargaining. It has been a slow walk to get unions recognized and give people the opportunity to be represented by a labor union. It only takes grit and tenacity to get through it in order to be able to get the opportunity to be represented by a union. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, 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 was surprised. The gentleman earlier said he was for unions and collective bargaining, and all of a sudden we are talking about union lackeys. The Cemex decision blocked by this amendment has already been implemented and is now the legal framework that determines when and why employers may be required to recognize and bargain with unions. Cemex preserves the employer's discretion to voluntarily recognize unions based on a demonstration of majority support. Many employers are doing so, but employers are always free instead to timely request an election to test a union's support. The NLRB is already conducting these elections, and parties are seeking remedies where there is election interference. Blocking enforcement of the rule would create legal uncertainty for employees, employers, and unions. Since the board decided Cemex, employers--this is not just workers--but employers have filed almost 100 petitions for such elections. This amendment would put many of those employer-filed petitions in limbo. The amendment would also block the board's current standard for when an employer's illegal conduct prevents a fair election and necessitates a bargaining order. Employees would lose clear protections for their right to have a free and fair choice on union representation. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I think one has to try to take a look at the labor history in our country in a very serious way to understand that the birthing of the unions, the struggle for workers' rights, and the violence against workers who have tried to form unions in this country. It has been not an acceptance of the collective bargaining rights of workers in this Nation. Workers have sacrificed. Some sacrificed their lives to get the creation of a union in this Nation. What are we talking about? The delays and the delays and the delays to recognize workers' rights; to study labor history in this Nation and what a difficult time it has been for workers to be able to be represented by a union of their choice and not have to fight over and over and over again for their rights. It can't be that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't understand the labor history and what has happened, and the forces that have tried to keep labor unions from forming. I think we have a point of agreement. Labor unions created the middle class of this Nation. Thank God, once again, they are on the rise. They are winning elections against some of the major corporations in this Nation who have tried to trodden down on them for many, many years. Mr. Chair, I oppose this 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 opposition to the amendment. This amendment would prevent millions of Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries from accessing critically necessary care. The Biden-Harris administration's proposed rule seeks to strengthen access to coverage for children and adults covered by Medicaid and CHIP. To access the healthcare providers and services they not only need but that they are entitled to. The proposed rule would set a national standard for maximum wait times for routine medical appointments for primary care and obstetrics/ gynecology. An appointment would need to be provided within 15 days, and for outpatient behavioral health services, 10 days. The proposed rule would require greater transparency on provider rates. The rule would require rate transparency to, once again, ensure an adequate network of providers. The proposed rule would require home care agencies to allocate at least 80 percent of the Medicaid payment to direct care workers' compensation. Once again, this Republican amendment would hurt our economy's children, seniors, people with disabilities, and the most vulnerable. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. I will make a suggestion to the gentleman that Texas ought to expand Medicaid. Mr. Chair, 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. Mr. Chair, our Federal Government needs brilliant and talented scientists who are willing to bring their skills to public service. Dr. Munster is chief of the Viral Ecology Section at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, an important component of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Munster is a leading expert in how viruses emerge and infect human populations and how we can best address these public health threats. Dr. Munster's laboratory aims to understand how emerging viral pathogens cross the species barrier so we can identify risks to humans and prevent disease outbreaks. He and his colleagues, in collaboration with the University of Oxford, helped to pioneer a vaccine approach that was used to develop a COVID-19 vaccine in partnership with AstraZeneca. The vaccine was widely used in the United Kingdom to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, Mr. Chair, apparently no good deed goes unpunished. Dr. Munster should be celebrated for his contributions to science and his dedication to protecting people from deadly public health threats. This is another amendment that really just demonstrates the lack of seriousness in this process and a lack of seriousness on behalf of my House Republican colleagues. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, this lack of pursuing scientific knowledge, scientific research--and the gentleman earlier spoke about Dr. Anthony Fauci. Dr. Fauci, his contributions to HIV/AIDS research for over 50 years and other immunodeficiency diseases is heralded in the annals of Discovery to Cure. This basic view that the pursuit of the answers to chronic illnesses, to diseases, to pandemics somehow is not understood for what its potential is and what it can do to save lives. I get the impression that some of my colleagues would shut down the NIH and the basic research, the scientific research that we do, the biomedical research that we do, collapse the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not allow them to function, to deal with illness and disease and pandemics. It is really kind of staggering that we would just see this unbelievable denial of science, pioneering vaccines in partnership with AstraZeneca used in the United Kingdom to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, expertise in how viruses emerge, which we are looking at, how they infect human populations. Why don't we want to know that? Why? Why don't we want to understand that? Then what we can do, if we understand it, is figure out how to treat these public health threats. What do we need to do to deal with the public health threats? It is stunning to me that we would retreat to a backwater in science and research if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have their way. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I am unclear because it says that the amendment offered by Mr. Rosendale of Montana: None of the funds made available by this act may be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the rule titled, ``Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule,'' published in the Federal Register on October 4. I think what the gentleman is speaking about, if there is another amendment that he is making reference to, that what he is talking about is providing abortions to unaccompanied children. That isn't the basis of his amendment at all here. Mr. Chair, can we get some clarity on the gentleman's amendments? My understanding is that it is about the Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule. Is that what this amendment is about?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, it says amendment No. 135, and I think we need to--do you have an amendment that deals with the unaccompanied children program foundational rule? I yield time to the gentleman to talk about what amendment we are speaking about. I yield time to the gentleman on his amendment.