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 strong opposition to this amendment because for me this amendment continues that road that has been laid out in this Labor-HHS bill where the majority is moving to really eliminate public education in the United States. This bill decimates public education by cutting the Department of Education by $22.5 billion, 28 percent. It seeks to plus-up one of the only education programs that received an increase, the Charter Schools Program. They cut everything else in public education but increased the charter schools in this bill. We have had some spirited discussions about charter schools on the Labor-HHS subcommittee, and there are certainly some differences of opinion around the role that they should play in our public education system and whether they have historically received appropriate oversight by the Department of Education. The Charter Schools Program provides seed money to open new charter schools around the country. We should be in agreement on one point: This program has far more money than the Department of Education knows what to do with. In 2019, months after Secretary DeVos pleaded with our subcommittee for a $60 million increase to the Charter Schools Program, the Department approached us with warnings that demand for funding was low. Sure enough, before the end of the year, the Department was unable to use the full appropriation and transferred $12 million to other education accounts. That was almost 3 percent of the program's appropriation. In addition, over the years, our committee discussed issues raised by the inspector general, including findings that States have mismanaged charter school closures and that the Department failed to provide any adequate guidance or oversight on the issue. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want oversight, and that is why we need to continue our oversight of the Charter Schools Program with respect to accountability, transparency, and success. Many open, many close. Many take people, and then they disgorge people. I support charter schools, but not at the risk of eliminating public education in this country, which is one of the issues that is on the agenda of the Republican majority in this Labor-HHS bill. This amendment provides a wasteful increase that would be better directed at restoring some of the underlying bill's disastrous cuts. Let's take a look at those cuts that are disastrous in education. Let's make sure that we are supporting title I. Let's make sure that we are supporting the development of teachers. Let's make sure that we are looking at Promise Neighborhoods. Let's make sure that we are dealing with the social and emotional learning of our kids instead of plussing- up a program that has enough money to make it and has not had the kind of oversight it needs in order to make sure that it is doing its job. 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 my opposition of this amendment. As I understand it, this is an increase for the inspector general. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the inspector general has done intensive investigation of the charter school movement. They have findings that the States mismanaged charter school closures, and the Department failed to provide adequate guidance or oversight on this issue. 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. Make no mistake, this amendment will result in fewer students receiving Pell grants and will cut the maximum Pell grant award for 6.4 million students who use Federal student aid to pay to get a college education. A cut of $9.25 billion will leave the program with a shortfall of $875 million in 2024. Under special scoring rules for the Pell Grant Program passed by Congress nearly two decades ago, Congress cannot provide less funding than required under current estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. This cuts a Pell grant to every single Pell recipient. If this amendment passes, the Pell grant program would have less funding than required to sustain the current maximum award and existing eligibility parameters. Faced with this reality, House Republicans will have two choices--cut the Pell grant maximum award or kick students out of the Pell Grant Program. At a time when students and families are struggling to cover rising college costs, it was already unconscionable that House Republicans would eliminate Federal Work-Study for 660,000 students and eliminate the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants for another 1.7 million students nationwide. It was already cruel when House Republicans offered no relief to rising college costs by freezing the maximum Pell grant for the first time in 12 years. If this amendment passes, House Republicans will go one step further by cutting the maximum Pell grant or kicking students out of the program. This is truly a new low. Does anyone in this Chamber remember Senator Claiborne Pell? I remember him. Claiborne Pell was from Rhode Island to the manner born, affluent, but he had a vision. He understood that the sons and daughters of working men and women of middle-class families, of vulnerable families, had a right to an education just as every rich person in this country does, and therefore, he created this program, the Pell Grant Program. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pass this amendment, then, in fact, they are on that road that I have said over and over and over again is eliminating public education in the United States of America, eliminating opportunity for people to succeed in this country. Why would you want a legacy or a legend that follows you with that kind of effort? The United States is the land of opportunity. It should be, particularly where it comes to education for our children. It is the way to the future. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, this is one more amendment on the road to eliminating public education in the United States of America. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I am shocked by this amendment's intent to eliminate all funding to the Department of Education's Office of Federal Student Aid. What will this mean for the 17.5 million students who need to fill out a Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the FAFSA? What will this mean for the 6.4 million students who rely on Pell grants to pay for college? What will this mean for nearly 43 million individuals, one in six adult Americans who are working to repay their Federal student loans? Make no mistake, this amendment signals an intent to destroy postsecondary education in this country. The House Republican Labor, HHS, Education bill already follows through on the other side's intent to break and dismantle public and postsecondary education for American students and families. This amendment just takes that destruction to another level. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, the gentleman wants to cut and wants to privatize higher education. He wants to send students to the for-profit colleges where there is a raft of information about how they are harming college students, and he wants to provide funding for the for- profit online program management companies, profiteers. That is who these folks are. It is everywhere. We know it. The data is rife with how they have created terrible situations for young people, and even those who are older, by shutting down, leaving these people with a bill, about not providing a credential so that people can get jobs. They are a menace on our education system. The gentleman here, as I understand it, will cut the Department of Education's Office of Federal Student Aid in order----

Ms. DeLAURO. No, I am sorry, I won't.----in order to be able to support an online, for-profit industry that is bilking America's students and, in many instances, America's veterans. It is really pretty incredible the direction that the majority will go in destroying public education in this country. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, with that 15 seconds, I will repeat what I said. We are looking at something that is scurrilous, supporting institutions that have been putting our students and our veterans at great risk. 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.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, just as a point of reference, Grand Canyon is online and nonprofit in name only. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I am shocked by this amendment's intent. To eliminate all Federal education funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, and minority-serving institutions, it is staggering, truly staggering. $400 million for HBCUs, eliminated. $228 million for Hispanic-serving institutions, eliminated. $100 for historically Black graduate institutions, eliminated. $52 million for Tribal colleges and universities, eliminated. Public education, eliminated. This colossal cut also eliminates countless other programs that help students access a postsecondary education and receive expanded economic opportunities. $1.2 trillion for the Federal TRIO program, eliminated. How far we have come. I have been on this Appropriations Committee for almost 28 years and been on the Labor-HHS subcommittee, and I can remember my Republican colleague Ralph Regula. Some of my colleagues on the other side will remember Ralph. There was no bigger supporter of the TRIO program or for the GEAR UP program. He understood the relevance of these economic and educational opportunities for youngsters. It was not just Ralph Regula. I can go down the line in a bipartisan way of individuals who have supported the TRIO program. It is eliminated. $388 million for the Federal GEAR UP program, eliminated. Once again, the House Republican goal in this bill is crystal clear: Destroy postsecondary education opportunity for students and for families nationwide. This amendment makes that goal explicit. 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 just had a quick look. At Grand Canyon, 86,000 students are online, so let's put that aside. The essential point of this amendment is what it would do to education and educational opportunities. As I mentioned, for the historically Black colleges, eliminated; Hispanic-serving institutions, eliminated; historically Black graduate institutions, eliminated; Tribal colleges--where else do you want to go to revoke education for youngsters in this country? I go back to an unbelievable man of vision, Claiborne Pell, who said, let's make postsecondary education available to all, not just the rich. I said it before on this floor. I am the daughter of an immigrant family who shared the dream that I would be here someday. The road for me was education--tough. My mother worked as a garment worker in the old sweatshops in the city of New Haven. My father was an insurance agent. They pieced together what they could to give me the best education that I could have so I could have success. I am successful. I am here and grateful for it. All those young people out there who are going to be denied a chance to get a college education because somewhere deep inside the psyche of the Republican majority now--this hasn't been in the past; there has been bipartisan support on these issues--but right now deep in that psyche is that we have to rid ourselves of public education. 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. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment highlights the extreme lengths that House Republicans will go in order to dismantle public education for students and families nationwide. The Institute of Education Sciences', IES', mission is to provide scientific evidence on which to ground education practice and policy and to share this information and make it accessible to educators, parents, policymakers, researchers, and the public. IES is independent. IES is nonpartisan. They are the statistics research and evaluation arm of the U.S. Department of Education. What would happen if this amendment is successful? Well, it would mean the end of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP. That is the assessment of what students in the United States are able to do in various subjects. That has been administered since 1969. It would mean the end of regional educational laboratories, which provide evidence-based technical assistance to school districts and States across the country. It would mean the end of new advances in education research and development, including exciting initiatives to expand high-risk, high- reward transformational research. This amendment would be the death of our Federal investment in education research. We just saw a little while ago that we were going to end our investment in biomedical research. Now, we are ending our investment in educational research. Simply, I cannot accept that outcome. Mr. Chairman, 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, but I want to provide a framework here for a moment. I was looking through the various amendments over the last little while. Amendment No. 69 from Mr. Biggs slashes the Pell grant funding. Amendment No. 70 from Mr. Biggs eliminates funding to give out Pell grants and to be able to collect student loans. Amendment No. 71 from Mr. Biggs eliminates funds for HBCUs, MSIs, TRIO, GEAR UP, and Tribal colleges. Amendment No. 76 from Mr. Biggs eliminates education, research, and funding. The most recent one is eliminating the funding by the Department of Education for the Institute of Education Sciences. There are two others, amendment No. 104 that eliminates the salary of the Department of Education Secretary, and amendment No. 92 from Mr. Crane that cuts education staff by $38 million. This is the litany of this battery of amendments where I make my point that the Republican majority is really in the business, within this bill, of eliminating public education. These amendments come on top of the underlying bill, which makes a 28 percent cut in education. Do we think we have a reasonable understanding of where the Republican majority wants to go with public education? Let's do it in. Mr. Chairman, I say to Mr. Biggs that he has the lion's share of taking education and public education to the graveyard. Is that what we are to do? The greater strength of this institution is its potential to help make a difference in people's lives and to provide opportunity. That is what we are supposed to do in the United States Congress and in the House of Representatives. Mr. Chair, this battery of amendments would destroy educational opportunity, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican majority needs Democratic votes to govern. We are considering this bill under suspension of the rules because House Republicans could not agree to pass a rule on a bill to keep the government open and operating on behalf of the American people. They can't do it. It says something very poignant about the ability to govern and the willingness to govern. This continuing resolution is flawed. Critically, it does nothing to help our allies. It does not include any emergency assistance for Israel, Ukraine, or our Indo-Pacific partners, for humanitarian aid, for childcare, or for disaster victims here at home. At a time when the Departments of State and Defense need to be able to respond quickly to global crises, House Republicans would put our diplomats and warfighters under outdated funding levels into February, for more than one-third of the fiscal year. Not only is it irresponsible to kick the can down the road for several months, but it is really a waste of taxpayer dollars, and these are folks who pride themselves on wanting to save taxpayer dollars. This proposal also shortchanges the WIC program, the women, infants, and children program. As a result of increased participation rates, the administration requested an additional $405 million to ensure that we can meet the demand for nutrition programs. The House Republican proposal includes no additional funds and will require States to halt enrollment or scale back benefits. A continuing resolution is a bridge to a final agreement. It should be judged on how it helps facilitate our goal, which is to update spending levels for full-year bills and the full-year bill of 2024. A so-called laddered bill makes it harder to reach a final agreement. Why? Because it doubles the likelihood of future shutdowns. In a time of global crisis, we should promote stability and not chaos. Ultimately, we are here because House Republicans broke the June budget agreement they overwhelmingly supported that was signed into law by the President. It established a top line, the amount of money that could be translated into the dollar amount to each one of the appropriations subcommittees. To make it simple, Mr. Speaker, it is a number that we agreed to, then you take that number, and it gets broken up into pieces. That is the majority's responsibility. I took that responsibility last December in the prior year in dealing with the allocation to each one of the 12 appropriations subcommittees. They then proceeded to waste the entire 6 weeks of the current stopgap bill overthrowing their own Speaker and pushing partisan spending measures that take us further from a final agreement. Congress must avoid a shutdown. I have just one point, Mr. Speaker. I think it is so interesting that we are discussing this continuing resolution at the same time--and I happen to be managing both bills--that the Labor-HHS-Education bill is on the floor and when we are going through a marathon of 146 amendments. It is the same path we were on for the last several weeks, where two bills had to be pulled from the floor because there weren't enough votes to pass them. I don't know if there are the votes to pass the Labor-HHS bill this afternoon or this evening or tomorrow morning. I just don't know. Nevertheless, it is the same path that we are on. Nothing is changed in looking at a continuing resolution that makes an additional proposal. Again, Congress must avoid a shutdown. That is our responsibility. I am very aware of that. Nonetheless, we must find a path forward to finish full-year bills. The worth of this agreement will be proven by what comes next, and the only successful path forward requires the following. First, the majority must recognize reality and abide by the bipartisan budget agreement that accompanied the debt-limit law. I think I am one of the few in this institution who voted against the budget agreement. I was fearful of where we would be today, and it is where we are today. Nevertheless, I understand the law of the land: It passes in the House. It passes in the Senate. The President signs it. It becomes the law of the land. We must abide by the bipartisan budget agreement that accompanied the debt-limit law. That means a modest increase for defense programs and maintaining nondefense investment levels. It also means adhering to the same policy framework that we have adopted on a bipartisan--that is Democrats and Republicans--bicameral--House and Senate--basis. We have this done over and over again. That means no new poison pill riders. We have done this over and over again. We did it just last December and the prior December. Second, the Appropriations Committee must be let loose to effectuate the agreement, and that means a good-faith negotiation to set the allocations for all 12 bills. Chair Granger and I have done this before, and she knows that I am ready to get to work to do it again. In the Senate, Chair Murray and Ranking Member Collins are already on a path to dealing with following the budget agreement so that we hold down the four corners of appropriations. I am so proud that we are all women. We get it. We are on track. We know how to do this. Lastly, we have to address the crises across the globe that threaten our allies, endangering our own national security. That means a promise--a promise--to work in good faith to bring forward an emergency supplemental bill that deals with Ukraine, Israel, humanitarian needs, our influence in the Indo-Pacific, and border security. Why are we holding up the resources and investments to the American people? Why are we abdicating our leadership in the world community by not moving forward? Why is it when the world is clamoring for humanitarian assistance that the only people holding back humanitarian assistance in this entire Congress on the House side and on the Senate side were the Republican majority? Mr. Speaker, let us move forward. That is the only way that we avoid finding ourselves right back here in January and February, considering another extension. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).