Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise to strike the last word.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I am very well aware of the vote that we took earlier this evening. It may be that the gentlewoman doesn't know that there is another body attached to the U.S. Congress called the United States Senate, and they have to vote on the continuing resolution. When they vote on it, we will find out what it is that they do with regard to this continuing resolution passed by the House, which quite frankly, is flawed to a fare-thee-well in meeting our obligations, both domestic and international. By the way, it isn't a law of the land until the President of the United States signs it. That may be a basic lesson in civics. There is the House, there is the Senate, and there is the President. Quite frankly, the budget agreement that had been signed by the President--for a basic primer in civics--is that the budget agreement passed the House overwhelmingly, and it passed the Senate, and it was signed by the President. It is the law of the land, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have dismissed, walked away from, and quite frankly, don't understand the process of government, an unwillingness to govern and an inability to govern. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment blocks a critical aspect of the Biden administration's whole-of-government strategy to build resilience at home and abroad against the impacts of climate change. Madam Chair, I oppose the 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 rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment blocks another critical aspect of the Biden administration's whole-of-government strategy to build resilience both at home and abroad against the impacts of climate change. It is my understanding that this amendment would prohibit--let me give an example. The agency highlighted certain grants provided under the Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities and clean energy sector apprenticeships provided through the bipartisan YouthBuild program, but that would be blocked. It is wrong to block the Department of Labor from commonsense grantmaking intended to build skills in the clean energy sector for rural workers and for at-risk youth. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment blocks suggestions and recommendations from a report by the Department of Education to ensure that college is available to all Americans who wish to attend, not just the wealthy, not just the privileged. In this report, the Department has identified promising practices based on evidence that institutions can consider. Many of these interventions or practices have already been shown to be successful at other institutions or States. The types of strategies this amendment seeks to undermine are essential to expanding diversity and opportunity in higher education and enjoy broad, bipartisan support, strategies like supporting K-12 college counseling, providing emergency and need-based aid, and supporting transfer and community college partnerships. Why not? Instead of proposing amendments like this that would harm students, I hope my colleagues across the aisle will join me and the Department of Education in expanding educational opportunity for all Americans. Let's have a literate, educated society. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It seeks to block priorities for an out-of-date civics competition from 2021. While my colleague seeks to gin up alarm over the prospect of Federal funding being used to support priorities that alarm her, she failed to mention how the Department ran an entirely new civics competition in 2023 that used different priorities from the 2021 competition. The Department has no current plans to reuse the 2021 priorities that she speaks about. Let me just tell you: Our children need to know about civics. We have children today who know nothing about government at the local level, the State level, or the Federal level. They don't know how to interact with one another with differences of opinion. The lack of knowledge about civics has created more division in our society than almost anything else. We need to invest in civics, and I know that because I have introduced legislation in a bipartisan way on having civics taught. Let's not create a specter about what civics education is and define it in your terms. It is good to have an educated society that understands what our government is about and how we can interact with one another and have agreements and disagree in an agreeable way with one another. In the end, this amendment was drafted to conjure up unwarranted fears and concerns. It will have no impact. It is another waste of our time. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would cap the facilities and administrative costs for NIH awards at 30 percent of the cost of the award. About 6 years ago, in October of 2017, the Labor-HHS subcommittee held a hearing on this topic. In a bipartisan way, we invited four experts who represented research institutions across the country, in Connecticut, Oklahoma, San Francisco, and Seattle. The consensus from our expert panel that morning was that a proposal by the Trump administration to place a cap on indirect costs for NIH awards would have a sharply negative impact on research. Our expert panel outlined the critical importance of indirect costs to their world-renowned research programs and the harsh consequences of establishing an arbitrary cap on indirect costs. Dr. Bruce Liang, dean of the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, outlined the many research-related costs that are covered under the guise of facilities and expenses, or indirect costs. He described the facilities and administrations cost as the shared expenses related to the building and use of research facilities and the administrative backbone functions that make such places run. Dr. Liang noted that the facilities and administrative reimbursements pay for building depreciation and maintenance, shared equipment, academic library materials, departmental administration, office supplies, and grant oversight activities, such as preaward applications and hopefully post-award work. He concluded by saying that F&A costs are absolutely critical funding to keep academic medical centers and research facilities operating efficiently. Our expert panel noted that the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, and the Association of American Universities all oppose the proposal to place an arbitrary cap on indirect costs for NIH awards. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 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 rise in opposition to this amendment. In the past few years, most of the institutes targeted, as I understand it, by this amendment, or Confucius Classrooms that are affiliated with them, have closed down. According to the data from the Congressional Research Service and the National Academy of Scholars, we know that compared to 2019, when there were over 100 Confucius Institutes nationwide, there are only a handful that operate in the United States--between 7 and 10. They are not still operating. Given the rate, they may continue to plummet. I am struck by this amendment. By exaggerating the threat and proliferation of these kinds of classrooms, it seems to be spreading misleading information that creates fear. Fear that is caused by these exaggerations leads to harm toward Asian-American students and teachers. To be honest, I don't know, and I would like to examine this. Were they teaching the Chinese language and Chinese culture? Maybe it was a learning experience. I don't know the answer to that. I just know that this does not appear to be a difficulty. I worry about spreading misleading information that creates fear. We have all seen in these areas what happens when fear and misinformation is spread. It has resulted in violence against Asian-American students and Asian-American teachers, which is not something I believe my colleague would foster. Based on available data, I think we can conclude that this amendment does not address any measurable threat to our system of public education and, quite honestly, is not being offered in good faith. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I really am quite troubled with this, and I need to express this. It seems to me that what is happening here with the amendment is that it seems to incite misinformation and fear. I don't know, quite frankly, if there is any evaluation or tangible results of what the effect of the institute or the classrooms were and are. They seem to have gone away. I think of it in these terms. My family members are immigrants from Italy. If they were teaching about Italian culture, teaching the Italian language--again, I don't know. This has really piqued an interest in me in trying to look at and investigate what we are talking about. Would there be this view that somehow the Italian Government was taking over and somehow brainwashing our kids or taking our kids down a wrong path? We seem to be casting aspersions with this amendment on Chinese culture and education in the guise of the Chinese Government. I suspect that that has a chilling effect. Quite frankly, you could say this about any cultural group or ethnic group that was working with youngsters in our community. Madam Chair, I find this amendment to be very troubling, more so than I ever thought. We have discerned no measurable threat to our system of public education. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

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

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment, once again, demonstrates the lack of seriousness of this process and the lack of seriousness by my Republican colleagues. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, just to note, this Federal employee is a nonpolitical civil servant, but I will say what I said before: I believe what this amendment demonstrates is a lack of seriousness of this process that we are engaged in here tonight and a lack of seriousness of my Republican colleagues in this House. Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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