Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

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

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would eliminate funding for the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health. This amendment is shortsighted. It would undermine our ability to prevent and mitigate disease outbreaks around the world. The Fogarty International Center has supported research training programs which have been vital to fighting emerging infectious diseases including Ebola and Zika. Now, we dealt with Ebola in 2014, and we dealt with the Zika crisis in 2016. I know that the gentleman was not here at that time and really didn't experience what was happening both here in the U.S. and also internationally. The very fact is that Fogarty helped to train the people who were involved with on-the-ground responders to the Ebola and to the Zika crisis. Moreover, Fogarty supports training programs for scientists in the United States and abroad who are engaged in prevention and treatment of diseases, such as malaria, dengue fever, and tuberculosis, all of which now have affected parts of the United States. Fogarty programs have provided research training to 6,000 scientists worldwide. It contributes to biomedical innovation. It supports the next generation of researchers across the globe. In addition, health innovations developed with foreign partners can be adapted to help solve health issues in the United States. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, in my continued opposition to this amendment, I suspect that my colleague is not interested in saving lives in West Africa, in Brazil, or in Haiti. Once again, with prior amendments that were listed here today, the issue of the work of science and research in the pursuit of saving lives is what this institution should be about. We are not talking about helicopters, roads, bridges, or anything else. Fundamentally, we are addressing the issue of using the biomedical research which we have scientists engaged and involved in both for the United States and internationally. If it happens internationally, it happens in the United States. That is our job. There is no higher calling than to save lives here and abroad. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Unfortunately, this amendment is nothing more than a political stunt. It would cut funding to the National Institutes of Health's Office of the Director as a penalty for a research grant awarded years ago. The grant awarded by NIH was subject to rigorous peer review and judged by reviewers to be a high priority due to the previous emergence of SARS-CoV in a bat population. The grant application did not propose research to enhance coronaviruses to be more transmissible or virulent in humans. The NIH determined that the award did not involve research with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens. The bat coronavirus sequences under this grant award showed that the viruses studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology under the NIH-funded grant were evolutionary, distant from SARS-CoV-2, and could not have been the source of SARS-CoV-2. Essentially, this is a cut of $3.7 million as a penalty for funding research and thereby taking funds away from the NIH as well, which are sorely needed. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 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, this amendment would cut funding by $160 million to the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health. During the time that I had the opportunity, for the 4 years that I served as chair of this subcommittee, we increased funding for NIH research by $8.4 billion, an increase of 21 percent above the 2019 level, and I might add, something I am really extremely proud of. As chair and with Ranking Member Cole, we agreed on a bipartisan basis for the increases to the NIH. I, again, feel very, very proud of the role that I was able to play with my colleague in providing additional funding for lifesaving research at the NIH, including research to develop cures or treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's, ALS, diabetes, the funding to develop a universal flu vaccine, and the funding to ensure that women are represented in clinical trials. This amendment would undermine the progress that we made on a bipartisan basis over the last 4 years, and I urge my colleagues to please oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the gentleman knows this but, as another point, I will extol the virtues of Dr. Anthony Fauci and his scientific background and experience of what he has done to resolve issues of disease and cures in the United States of America and overseas. Maybe the gentleman doesn't know, Dr. Fauci is no longer at the NIH. It is unbelievably stunning to me that we are listening to someone talk about how COVID came out of the NIH. What happened to all your other theories? Mr. Chairman, this is really a conspiracy theory that we are generating here. For that reason, and probably for many, many other reasons that have no basis in science or in reality, I continue to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I am having trouble listening to a series of science deniers here this afternoon. That is really troubling. The amendment would cut funding to the National Institutes of Health by an additional $3.6 billion. The base bill already cuts NIH funding by $2.8 billion below what we are talking about in 2023. That is 2.8 and another 3.6. I think there was another amendment that took additional money, which means that this amendment would bring the overall funding cut to the NIH of $6.4 billion at the current funding levels. That would mean drastic cuts to lifesaving research on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, ALS, diabetes, infectious diseases, and the list goes on and on and on. This amendment would cut funding to the National Cancer Institute by an additional $710 million. I am a 36-year survivor of ovarian cancer. I had the benefit of biomedical research. Why shouldn't other women have the benefit of biomedical research to save their lives with ovarian cancer, one of the biggest killers of women in the Nation? This bill would also cut funding to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development by $175 million. It would cut funding to the National Institute on Aging by $441 million. Let's tell that to all of our elder Americans with the issues that they have as they age. Let's cut back that research. It would cut funding to the National Institute on Drug Abuse by $166 million. I continue to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how upset they are about addiction and drug abuse and the increase of that. What are we doing about it? This research addresses that issue. It would cut funding to the National Institute of Mental Health by $200 million. Do we not understand that we had a crisis in mental health in this country before the pandemic, and we are in a serious crisis with mental health at all ages post-pandemic? We want to cut the money for the research for mental health? Put simply, this amendment would mean a drastic cut to scientific breakthroughs, cures to diseases, and lifesaving treatments. Did you know that the United States has been the leader in the world in health and advancement. We have the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA. These are crown jewels in what health is about in the United States and the cures here and abroad. Why would we want to roll back our advancements in health, science, and medical achievements? This does go backwards. Like I have said in prior amendments, our job with these bills is to save lives, not to be engaged in political diatribes. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, let me say a couple of things because I am a strong supporter of BioShield. Within the 2023 budget, I might add, there is $850 million. I am for emergency preparedness. The gentleman every year puts in requests for increases, and we put in increases every year for Project BioShield. However, what I am concerned about, which I will address, is the $59 million cut. I think we should continue to increase money every year for Project BioShield, but the amendment cuts funding for the buildings and facilities at the NIH by $59 million. NIH currently has a backlog of nearly $4 billion in needed repairs, and during the 4 years that I served as chair of the subcommittee, we increased funding for the NIH buildings and facilities account from $200 million in 2019 to $350 million in 2023 to begin to address the long-term backlog in a responsible way. This amendment would undermine the progress we have made. I might add, once again, this was on a bipartisan basis over the last 4 years that we agreed to the increases in the NIH buildings and facilities account as well as the increases in Project BioShield. Cutting funding for NIH's buildings and facilities would exacerbate the backlog of repairs, potentially affecting NIH's intramural research projects if laboratories and facilities are degraded. More importantly, this amendment demonstrates, once again, that overall funding in this bill is grossly insufficient. That is one of my biggest concerns about this bill. We need to properly fund Project BioShield and the National Institutes of Health. We should not be forced to choose between research facilities and emergency preparedness. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the 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 yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

Ms. DeLAURO. As with the prior amendment, Mr. Chair, I support the National Strategic Stockpile very strongly, and I might say I strongly support it, so I don't oppose it. As the chair of the subcommittee in the past, I have increased funding on a yearly basis for the stockpile. I know that the gentleman has made requests for increases, and we have met those increases with regard to the stockpile. The question, once again, for me is cutting the buildings and facilities at the NIH by $119 million. I will repeat this: NIH has a backlog of nearly $4 billion in needed repairs. In the 4 years that I served on the subcommittee as chair, we increased the NIH building and facilities account from $200 million in 2019 to $350 million in 2023 to begin to address the backlog and build up in a responsible way. I might add that I am particularly proud that we did this on a bipartisan basis, and we have done that over the last 4 years while recognizing the gentleman's concerns in this area and responding in a positive way to the increases that have been requested. Cutting the funding for NIH buildings and facilities exacerbates the backlog of repairs. It affects their intramural research projects if the laboratory and the facilities are in disrepair. More importantly, as I said just a few moments ago, the amendment demonstrates that overall funding in this bill is grossly insufficient. I know that there are some who want to cut it even further, so we begin to deal with robbing Peter to pay Paul here. Nonetheless, we need to properly fund the Strategic National Stockpile. That is in our national interest and the interest of the National Institutes of Health. However, it is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are always telling me that we have hard choices to make and that we do have to make choices--and we do--but we should not be forced to choose between research facilities and emergency preparedness. Nevertheless, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that we should starve the bill and then, for the issues that may be critically important, take money from another critically important bill or program. Let us fund this bill where it should be to meet the needs of the National Strategic Stockpile as well as allowing the NIH to be able to have laboratories and buildings in good repair so that our scientists can perform in an environment that allows them to be more creative, more innovative, and do more about the discovery to cure. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to 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, this amendment would direct $15 million from the Strategic National Stockpile to allow States to build or maintain their own medical stockpile. The 2023 appropriation bill authorized a demonstration program for State Strategic National Stockpiles but did not include funding. This amendment would reduce funding for the Federal Strategic National Stockpile to support State efforts. You have one amendment that wants to go to $100 million, one who wants to take $15 million away from the national stockpile. It is important to note that the authorization specifically stated that authorized funds were intended to supplement rather than supplant the maintenance and use of the Federal Strategic National Stockpile. Redirecting SNS funds as this amendment does is in conflict with the intended purpose of the law. We are not adding on to, we are taking away from and moving someplace else. I would suggest that with regard to our public health and our national security, that through these efforts what we should do is to focus in on dealing with public health infrastructure in the strongest possible way, and that means making the investments in data modernization and data collection. There ought to be the authority to report data that the CDC should have to get this information, so we know what is happening in real time. We ought to take a look at the State laboratories and look at how we are supporting State laboratories, which many crashed, the whole infrastructure during COVID, the public health infrastructure nearly crashed. This amendment is in conflict with the intended purpose of the law. Once again, it takes money rather than adding to. It is intended to supplement, but what it does is it supplants. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I stand in continued opposition to the amendment. It is hard to fathom the logic of supplanting versus supplementing. If you are taking money from the stockpile, you are taking away the funds that are there, but you are not adding funds to what they already have so, in fact, you are taking money from the SNS for this other effort which is contrary to what the law states. I agree different States have different needs, et cetera. That is why I think that what you ought to do is to buttress what we are doing in State laboratories, dealing with data modernization, to make our public health infrastructure as strong as possible. This really takes money away from the SNS. Mr. Chair, I oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

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 would cut $28 million from the Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose of eliminating the Minority HIV/AIDS Prevention Initiative. How far my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come from the vision of George Bush and his PEPFAR Initiative. The underlying bill already cuts funding for the Minority HIV/AIDS Prevention Initiative by more than 50 percent. We have cut it already in this bill by 50 percent from its current funding level of $60 million to a proposed funding level of only $28 million. That is unacceptable. In the explanatory materials the Republican majority posted online to accompany the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill, the majority acknowledges ``the critical role that the Minority AIDS Initiative plays in our longstanding efforts to eliminate HIV and address the disproportionate disease burden that racial minority communities face.'' That is in the explanatory materials, and that is true. The minority HIV/AIDS prevention initiative supports HIV prevention, as well as treatment in minority communities to help address that disparity. While we have made significant advances in recent decades against the HIV epidemic, it continues to be a crisis in many racial and ethnic minority communities. Almost three out of four new HIV diagnoses are among racial and ethnic minorities. This amendment to eliminate funding for the minority HIV/AIDS prevention initiative would take us back to a time when the Federal Government turned a blind eye to the spread of HIV, especially in minority communities. Let me be clear: Not only is this amendment unacceptable, but the funding cut of more than 50 percent in the base bill is unacceptable. When we go to conference with the Senate, after this House bill goes up in flames, I will ensure that these disastrous funding cuts are not included in the final bill. 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 to oppose this amendment. I also might add, if you take the base bill which my Republican colleagues have come forward with, which is really unacceptable, the base bill ends the HIV initiative. These are programs that have been eliminated. It eliminates the HIV initiative here. This amendment would further cut the opportunity for treating AIDS in the minority community. What is going on here that we are not moving toward ending the HIV epidemic? We are close to it, which is why we dealt with this initiative on a bipartisan basis over the last 4 years. This, once again, is my colleagues turning their backs on saving people's lives. What more important effort should we be involved in in this Congress? Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.