Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

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

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

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

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. As you know, Mr. Calvert is the chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and a very respected member. I don't see him on the floor now. He is someone who cares deeply about our national security here at home and our international obligations and responsibilities. I mention a couple of things in this context. As of this bill, $28 billion for the Department of Defense is held up until next February, and that depends whether or not we can come to agreement. Next February, $28 billion to the Department of Defense. The other piece of this is that the State Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and the Defense Subcommittee have shared responsibilities. As you know from reading this laddered approach, those two bills will not get to a continuing resolution until February 2. What do they do that has relevance in this period of time? The State, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies Subcommittee has a very small amount of money in which they can move humanitarian assistance in this global crisis that we have and the world clamoring for humanitarian assistance. Now, the State, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies Subcommittee and the Defense Subcommittee share some other pieces which have to do with funding for Ukraine and funding for Israel. The $3.3 billion to Israel is held up until next February, and money for Ukraine, which is depleted, is nowhere to be found; so we are walking off the international stage. We have abdicated a moral responsibility to Israel and Ukraine--not unlike what happened in 1938 with appeasement--and to humanitarian assistance. Think about who was responsible for that. There is another piece of this which I think is very, very interesting. We have seen the delay. It has been 5 months since we had the budget agreement in June, so 5 months of delay there. Then another 45 days of delay. I said a few moments ago, given what we have seen on the floor with regard to Labor-HHS today, I don't understand what is going to change in this next go-round. There is every opportunity for further delays. Further delays. What happens then is we move toward something called sequestration. Let me translate it into real terms. Those are across-the-board cuts in every single area, both domestic and international. That is what the law has done here. There appears to be no understanding or no consideration for the movement of where we need to go. We have a history now of delay after delay after delay, and I don't see anything that portends a change in that activity or behavior. With regard to those across-the-board cuts, if all 12 appropriations bills are not passed--not 8, not 4--and there is one hanging out there, that across-the-board cut comes crashing down on our heads. I think people just need to know this information and fully understand. I don't want a government shutdown--I don't--but I want to fully understand what the stakes are. I have to believe that every Member of this body wants to know what the stakes are and what is actually in these bills. Finally, I am going back to something I said earlier: Who is holding up the resources that the American people are clamoring for, whether it is their health, their education, or their ability for a job? Every bill that we have seen on this floor curtails and cuts back in a remarkable way. In the Labor-HHS bill, they are taking us back to 2008 numbers. The resources that the American public needs to thrive are being cut back. People in this country are living paycheck to paycheck, and we are doing nothing to help them deal with their cost of living. I believe that they know that. On the domestic front, we are shortchanging the American people. Let's get to the international scene. Who is holding up aid to Israel? Who is holding up funding the support for Ukraine? When did we believe that Vladimir Putin has noble intentions? He would gobble it up in a nanosecond. Who would believe who was holding up humanitarian assistance? We have a moral responsibility. We are watching children in Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza dying, but we don't have the strength to blow past this and say let's do what we have been charged to do by this Constitution and carry out our duty. House Republicans are holding up all of these critical security funding needs. Think about it and think about how we should break the logjam with people who know better in this institution. Get us those top-line numbers. Get us the allocations. Get the appropriations process on track. Fund the bills for 2024. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The underlying bill already cuts NLRB funding by one-third. That is the lowest nominal appropriation since 1999 and the lowest appropriation in real terms in at least five decades. A further reduction would mean mass furloughs, reduction in force, and the closure of field offices. In terms of scale, a $100 million cut equates to total compensation for more than 500 FTEs. That is roughly 40 percent of the NLRB workforce. Combined with the $99 million cut in the base text, the agency would lose roughly 80 percent of its staff capacity. Case processing would grind to a halt, even as the agency faces a backlog following last year's 10 percent increase in case intake. Let's talk about cases. Let's talk about unfair labor practice. We should ignore unfair labor practices, according to the majority. We should not concern ourselves with employers who ignore collective bargaining rights because, quite frankly, I don't believe the majority believes in collective bargaining rights. That really thwarts economic policy. That leaves people on their own, people who are living paycheck to paycheck who are fundamentally concerned with their cost of living. We just make it worse for them, but I believe that this follows a Republican philosophy--antiworker, antiunion, antiworking family. That is what sums up this amendment. 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, but it is really very interesting. We are in the year 2023. We have a budget for this year, and maybe this is news to the gentleman, but in a bipartisan way where the NLRB had been flat funded for decades, we came together and increased the funding for the NLRB. All of these pejoratives that you are spewing about the NLRB, your Republican colleagues on the committee from last year voted to increase funding for the NLRB. I don't believe that the Republican majority cares much about the goals; that is, about dealing with worker complaints, dealing with basic, fundamental, collective bargaining rights. I think you believe in thwarting people's economic opportunity for the future; otherwise, you would not be going down this road. In 2023, in a bipartisan, bicameral basis, we increased the funding for the NLRB to be able to do its job. I don't know what has happened to folks since last December, but you clearly don't follow what has been happening and what was being done with the NLRB. Mr. Chair, this amendment really ought to be defeated, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment prohibits the use of funds by HHS or any grantee to implement a mask mandate at Head Start programs. First, I think we need to be clear about the facts. There is currently no Federal mask requirement in place. There is no Federal mask requirement in place. This amendment would leave the Federal Government ill-equipped to implement evidence-based policy that protects the health and safety of the public if we face another public health emergency, such as a dangerous new COVID-19 variant. Preventing diseases reduces healthcare costs, such as hospitalization and pharmaceuticals. Masking is a critical public health tool. New variants are an expected part of the evolution of viruses and can be more aggressive, transmittable, or cause more severe disease than the original strain. Face masks can protect the wearer and those around them by preventing transmission. Although many people would like to act as if COVID is over, it is not. Over the past 3 years, there were more than 1 million deaths due to COVID in the United States, some of whom the people in this room knew and loved. We also know that some people infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 can suffer long-term effects from their infection, meaning they can experience health problems that can last for years. Our Nation's public health officials need to have options to protect our communities as we continue to live with COVID and respond to other public health emergencies in the future. Why would we politicize something that could help our fellow Americans stay healthy? This sweeping amendment is unnecessary. It puts us all at risk. I think it sets a dangerous precedent for Congress to overrule a scientific process. We need to follow the science. That is what we need to be doing and not following the politics, the religious beliefs, the philosophies, the ideology of Republican Members of Congress. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment. I will make the point I made before. Why do we really want to politicize an issue of public health and public safety? We can come together around these issues. It is not a matter of gotcha. We all experienced a very traumatic period in our lives with COVID- 19. Yes, there were masks. We were trying to find our way forward to protect people in this country. That is essentially what it is all about. You can have a disagreement, but why would we prohibit the use of funds by HHS or any grantee to implement a mask mandate at Head Start programs when there is no Federal mask requirement in place? Mr. Chair, I 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 rise in strong opposition to this amendment. American families pay into their retirement savings over the course of their working lives so that they can retire with financial security and dignity. Responsible advice providers can help people meet their savings goals and retire with dignity, and they should be paid fairly for this important work. Unfortunately, many retirement savers rely on the financial advice of providers who do not put their interests first, actions that can lead to diminished investment returns or higher transaction costs. Let me give you an example. Advice rooted in conflicts of interest regarding the sale of just one investment product--that is fixed index annuities--may cost savers as much as $5 billion per year. This hurts workers, families, and the American economy. Plain and simple, these are a form of junk fees that can erode the retirement savings of hardworking American families. Fortunately, the Department of Labor is proposing to protect retirement investors through a new rule requiring financial advisers to avoid recommendations that pad their pockets at the expense of retirement savers. I don't know if somebody can tell me, why wouldn't we want to protect folks in retirement? This amendment would block the Department's regulatory efforts to protect retirement savers from junk fees. This would leave the investments of hardworking Americans vulnerable to financial advisers looking out for their own financial gain at their clients' expense. 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 the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. I think the gentlewoman is right. Americans are worried about very serious financial issues. They are living paycheck to paycheck, and they are struggling. What, in fact, they don't need is irresponsible providers charging them junk fees that take money out of their pockets instead of understanding that they do have some advice and counsel as to where to go and who the bad actors are. Once again, this amendment would leave retirement savers vulnerable to junk fees. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to 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, the prior speaker talked about families trying to save for college. I understand that. It is tough these days to save for college, to put your kids through college, especially in this economy--thwarted, I might add, by some of the prior amendments that we have seen here tonight. Why wouldn't we try to protect those folks, allowing them to save and, quite honestly, save them from junk fees? I didn't really realize that so many of my Republican colleagues support this effort, which would leave retirees susceptible to people who would sell them a bill of goods, a pig in a poke--pick whatever commentary you want to make--and then charge them for it. You deny people a real return on their investment, but you charge them a fee for doing that. That is a junk fee. You are paying for junk--junk advice, junk assistance--and you bear the brunt of that. I am not saying it is all providers. There are probably lots of good folks who are financial consultants and advisers, but don't tell me there aren't a lot of bad actors in this area who are collecting from the most vulnerable. Not every person in retirement has all the knowledge to do everything that they need to do to evaluate and investigate a financial planner to make them whole at the end of the day. As I just mentioned before, this is an amendment that leaves retirement savers vulnerable to these junk fees. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I am still in opposition to this amendment. Let me tell you this tale here. Grant and Dorothy were a retired couple who were both in their seventies when they turned over their retirement funds to their broker. The broker decided it would be appropriate to employ a complex strategy that was geared toward generating growth while hedging against catastrophic bear market losses. Unfortunately, with the strategy, in just 7 months, the broker lost almost 20 percent of their $150,000 in retirement funds. During the same time period, the broker earned $15,000. That is a junk fee. Bad investment advice that denies savers good returns on their investments is a form of a junk fee. Mr. Chair, I 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, the amendment would prohibit HHS, Health and Human Services, from making any voluntary contributions to the World Health Organization, including contributions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response. WHO, the World Health Organization, is an indispensable partner for the CDC and the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response to effectively achieve their missions of protecting America from health, safety, and security threats, both foreign and domestic. The World Health Organization sets health norms and standards for its 194 member states--for everyday public health concerns, as well as crises and public health emergencies. Without collaboration with WHO, CDC and the United States would have limited means by which to inform and influence those global norms. As a U.N. organization, the World Health Organization has access to geographies and populations that may be difficult for our CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other bilateral health agencies to reach, and therefore, filling critical needs around the world to address public health threats at their source in a way no other organization can. CDC uses all the tools at its disposal, including sharing technical expertise and deploying emergency responders, to ensure its resources at the WHO are working to achieve CDC's core mission. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention works with the World Health Organization to address ongoing public health threats and priorities, including polio eradication; routine immunizations and immunization system strengthening; pandemic, seasonal, and avian influenza; and building foundational public health capacities at the country level to strengthen global health security. In addition, I might add that the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, ASPR, has an agreement with the World Health Organization to provide smallpox vaccine to respond to an outbreak should one occur. This amendment could jeopardize the containment of an outbreak, and therefore, the health and security of the United States. This amendment is unnecessary, and it would open the door for other countries to replace our seat at the table. If we are not at the table, then China will claim our place. Congress must not tolerate any effort to stymie American leadership on global health. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 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 rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It really is disgraceful that the Republican majority has shown a proclivity in the 2024 appropriations bills to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods. Public servants are doing their jobs, and they carry out the policy of the administration that they serve, Democrat or Republican. The gentleman may have genuine concerns about the Office of Refugee Resettlement, but Congress should be talking about policy concerns without rhetoric and certainly without personal retribution to the employees devoting their time and talent to the Federal Government. Ms. Dunn Marcos is extremely qualified. She has worked tirelessly on refugee issues domestically and internationally for years. She has led teams for the International Rescue Committee across the United States and Europe. She has served in the Peace Corps. She stood up the processing services and safe havens for thousands of Afghans during Operation Allies Welcome. She now oversees the care of thousands of vulnerable unaccompanied children. Ms. Dunn Marcos is a dedicated public servant. Defunding the office of the director position is not how we solve policy differences. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment. It really is pretty disgraceful that this woman is a public servant with an impeccable background in the area of dealing with refugees, International Rescue Committee, Peace Corps, safe haven for Afghans serving with Operation Allies Welcome, caring for thousands of vulnerable children now. This is beneath our dignity, and I might add it is a little bit about theater of the absurd, and it is disgraceful the direction that this committee has gone in dealing with really dedicated public servants and denigrating them and trying to threaten their livelihoods. There are policy differences, as I said, and without rhetoric, certainly without personal retribution--nobody out there, if they have differences with us, threatens our livelihoods. Why are we doing that to others? If we have a policy difference, let's get it sorted out and find another way to deal with policy differences instead of defunding the office of the director position. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.