Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Secretary Xavier Becerra is a lifelong public servant. He is also a very dear friend, and I suspect he is a personal friend of many Members here today on both sides of the aisle. Xavier Becerra spent 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, including as a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee and as a member of the House leadership, serving as assistant to the Speaker and as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. As Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra leads one of the most important departments in the Federal Government, including world-leading biomedical research, public health, and drug development. Health and Human Services is responsible for mental health, substance use prevention and treatment, community health centers, LIHEAP, Head Start, childcare and development block grants, and emergency preparedness and response. As Secretary of HHS, he is responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act's health insurance marketplace, which together provide healthcare coverage to 160 million Americans, or nearly half of our country. During his tenure at HHS, Secretary Becerra has overseen record- breaking enrollment in health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, as more than 16 million people selected a marketplace health plan in 2023. Secretary Becerra's accomplishments are too numerous to list here. He has served his country honorably for more than 30 years, and he deserves better than this deplorable amendment. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this vindictive amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I oppose this 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.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Proposing to eliminate the salaries of the hardworking public servants, as I have said earlier, is really petty. It is very, very petty, and it is beneath the dignity of this body. It demonstrates a lack of seriousness in the process that we are now engaged in and the road on which we should be traveling to really put together appropriations bills that meet the needs of the American people and our international obligations. This is really not how we should solve differences of opinion. The mission of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights. OCR's mission includes areas of concern that the Labor-HHS-Education Committee has prioritized, again, over the years on a bipartisan basis, including stronger enforcement to protect the rights of students with disabilities. Currently, there is bipartisan support for continuing OCR's enforcement of civil rights laws as outlined in President Biden's and the Biden administration's U.S. National Strategy to Counter Anti- Semitism, something that we are--just the flood of anti-Semitism today, and on a bipartisan basis we are supporting OCR's enforcement of the civil rights laws to counter anti-Semitism. At a time when so many student populations are feeling vulnerable and in need of support, it really is irresponsible, and it is reckless to take out the Department of Education's top civil rights official. Once again, it demonstrates a lack of seriousness in the process that we are engaged in here on this floor at 10 o'clock at night. I believe again, as I said earlier, it demonstrates a lack of seriousness on behalf of my Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives. Vote ``no'' on what is a vindictive amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve 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 strong opposition to this amendment. This is really pretty extraordinary. What is the mission of the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration? It is to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance. OSHA is responsible for making sure employers provide safe workplaces. This is really just consistent with an earlier amendment that the gentlewoman offered which was to eliminate all funding for OSHA. Clearly, she doesn't have very much concern about creating a safe workplace for employees. Since OSHA was created in 1971, the number of workplace deaths and the rate of on-the-job injuries has declined by 65 percent, with a workforce twice as large. Why do we not want to protect workers on the job? What is wrong with that concept? My mother worked in the garment industry, and all those years ago, she was not protected. None of the women in that sweatshop were protected. We have moved forward to protect our workers. That is what OSHA does. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misplaced amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, there isn't a COVID vaccine mandate. I think we have established that over and over and over again. Apparently, it just doesn't come through. The long and the short of it, what this amendment would do is really hurt a public servant at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Madam Chair, I am opposed to 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, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The amendment would prohibit funding to the World Health Organization. This prohibition would remove the United States from an indispensable partner in protecting America against everyday public health concerns, as well as crises and public health emergencies. Disease does not recognize borders. The United States is not an island. If you have an outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, you can bet that that is a plane ride away from the United States. Understand that this is the world that we function in and that we need to have partners in what we are doing to be able to control public health emergencies overseas and in the United States. This amendment is unnecessary. It opens the door for other countries to replace us in our seat at the table. We cannot tolerate any effort to stymie American leadership on global health. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, there is nothing more to do but continue to 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 strong opposition to the amendment. This amendment would block funding to the Office of Population Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. The two most significant grant programs administered by the Office of Population Affairs are the Title X Family Planning program and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. I might add that the Republican Labor-HHS bill introduced today already eliminates both of these programs. In 2022, 2.6 million people in the United States received healthcare services through Title X health clinics, including in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and eight territories. The majority of patients live at or below the Federal poverty line. More than a million people rely on Title X-funded providers as their sole or primary source of healthcare. This healthcare includes access to contraception, cancer screenings, sexually transmitted infections, testing, and treatment, and other preventive services. In 2022, Title X-funded providers administered close to 500,000 cervical cancer screenings and more than 3.5 million STI and HIV tests. Let us take those healthcare opportunities away from people who use these clinics as their primary source of care. Given the push by Republicans to ban abortion, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it is more important now than it has ever been in 50 years for people to have access to birth control. In addition, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program supports evidence- based comprehensive sex education programs, which have been proven to reduce pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections among teens. The Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program is vital--now more than ever. Young people need access to honest and accurate sex education programs that give them the knowledge to prevent unintended pregnancies, avoid sexually transmitted infections, and the ability to develop healthy relationships. But again, the Labor-HHS bill introduced today eliminates funding for both Title X Family Planning and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. It is appalling. The Republican majority will stop at nothing to attack women's reproductive health at all levels. As we have seen across the States, Republicans will continue their efforts to ban abortion. As this amendment shows, their preoccupation with women's reproductive health is not limited to abortion but extends to eliminating access to contraception and comprehensive sex education. Mr. Chair, I will give a note about cervical cancer, if I can. Every year almost 4,000 women die from cervical cancer in this country. The ability to get people screened--and a lot happens with young women-- their ability to get screened and to be diagnosed and get the treatment that they need is essential for them to survive. Why in God's name would we deny them the opportunity for a screening and treatment in order to be able to survive? Why? I don't understand my Republican colleagues' preoccupation with women's reproductive health. It is not limited to abortion. You would eliminate contraception, comprehensive sex education, and the ability for people to get screenings and treatment that they need in order to be able to survive. Again, saving lives is the most important effort that we can make as Members of Congress. That is our job. Let us oppose this amendment, and 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 opposition to the amendment. The amendment would block the Biden-Harris administration's proposed rule that would ensure the Federal Government and States get the most bang for their buck from the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by closing loopholes that drug manufacturers were taking advantage of--and we do know that drug manufacturers can take advantage of individuals. By opposing this rule, Republicans just want to hand money to their drug manufacturer friends to take advantage of taxpayers' dollars. The proposed rule would help States more effectively operate their Medicaid pharmacy programs and approve access to necessary prescription drugs for people covered by Medicaid. In particular, the proposed rule would help States obtain drug rebates required under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The proposed rule would enhance the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program integrity by assuring greater consistency and accuracy of drug information reporting, strengthen data collection, and efficient operation of the program. This amendment would make it more difficult to understand manufacturers' pricing--a big issue today is the cost of the prescription drugs, the manufacturers' pricing. What a sop to the industry. It tells you where the majority's priorities are--so a State is unable to increase its leverage in negotiating larger supplemental rebates for high-cost drugs. This amendment would increase costs for the Federal Government and for the States. 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.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment would prohibit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting or supporting any firearm injury and mortality prevention research. Firearm injury is among the five leading causes of death for people aged 1 through 44 in the United States and the leading cause of death among children and teens aged 1 through 19. I have to repeat the last statement: Firearm injury is the leading cause of death among children and teens aged 1 through 19. The gentlewoman said that this is not about public health. It is the leading cause of death among children and teens aged 1 through 19. This is all about public health unless we don't believe that causes of death are a part of public health. Maybe that is true. This amendment to prohibit the CDC from conducting research on the leading cause of death of our young people would be added to a bill that already removed the funding for this research. This amendment is absurd. Mr. Chair, read the bill. Collecting timely data, addressing the gaps in knowledge around this issue, and identifying effective prevention strategies are needed to keep individuals, families, schools, and communities safe from firearm injury and death and to enhance safe firearm practices. The CDC is supporting a diverse portfolio of research projects to advance our understanding of the characteristics, risks, and protective factors of firearm violence, suicide, and unintentional injury, and the effectiveness of interventions to prevent firearm-related injuries and death--injuries and death, public health. Many funded research projects focus specifically on youth or will have implications for youth while others are relevant for specific populations at elevated risk for firearm violence and suicide like our veterans and those who have been victims of violence. I fought to establish this funding line in fiscal year 2020, and I will continue to fight to ensure that this funding is included. We should be united in finding ways to save lives and end gun violence, not play partisan games with this critical research. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, let me make one point. I am opposed to this amendment, obviously, because it is an absurd amendment. Firearm injury is the leading cause of death among children and teens aged 1 through 19. This is all about public health. Let us not turn it into a debate or a discussion on anything else. What this says to me is there really isn't a desire or the understanding of what we try to do to save the lives of teens, adults, veterans, or anything else that falls into the litany of amendments that we have seen here tonight that would put people's lives in danger and don't use the resources we have through this Labor-HHS bill that we have used on a bipartisan basis in prior years to save lives. This is one more example of how we believe that maybe the lives are not worth saving. 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 rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The amendment would block the Department of Health and Human Services from requiring minimum staffing levels at long-term care facilities. Understaffing in nursing homes is in a full-blown crisis. To address the staffing crisis, the proposed rule would require a minimum number of certified nursing assistants, who provide the bulk of personalized care for our loved ones, as well as registered nurses. Staffing minimums will ensure that high-quality care and patient safety are prioritized, as decades of research demonstrate a clear association between higher staffing levels and a higher quality of care. In contrast, low staffing levels have been linked to increased cases of abuse and the overuse of antipsychotics and psychotropic drugs. In addition, minimum staffing levels are needed to support a long- term care workforce that has relied for too long on the sacrifice of underpaid caregivers who often earn below 200 percent of the poverty level. This workforce is disproportionately comprised of women, particularly women of color, whose hard work, dedication, and skill has never been properly valued. Underpaid long-term care workers face physical and emotional burnout, which also leads to high turnover rates which further exacerbates staffing shortages. Furthermore, let us be clear: The long-term care industry is making record profits in Medicare. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being diverted from patient care to profits. Private equity firms are buying nursing homes because of their potential for profit. If the majority was serious about supporting the nursing workforce, they would have provided increased investments in the Nursing Workforce Development program at the Health Resources Services Administration, which helps to develop the pipeline of nurses. Instead, the majority has cut nearly $20 million from this program and has the audacity to then include report language that says that the committee remains concerned over workforce shortages among healthcare professionals, including the nursing workforce. Concerned would be great without cutting $20 million from the program. I strongly support the Biden administration's proposed rule to strengthen minimum staffing levels at our long-term care facilities. 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, and I would just say to the gentleman that if you really cared about the nursing shortage-- and we have a serious nursing shortage--there wouldn't be this $20 million cut that is there. There wouldn't be less pay for nurses. There wouldn't be the cutting of the programs that recruit and train nurses. We would have a program that dealt with the cancellation of student debt for nurses. We would make investment in nurses so they would want to be on the job, but no. You cut every piece that, in fact, assists nurses in being recruited, trained, get better wages, get better hours, get better opportunity to get their training and get indemnity on their student debt in that regard. No. This is a profit motive. This is a profit motive for nursing homes and the industry that protects them. There are private equity firms that are buying the nursing homes because of their potential for profit. 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 opposition to this amendment. This amendment prohibits the use of funds to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandate. I don't know how many times I have said it here this evening, there is currently no Federal mask requirement in place. What is it that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't understand? No Federal mask requirement in place. Is that not the Queen's English? It is there. I will just say that masks have been used in medical settings to prevent respiratory infections for decades. Healthcare professionals wear masks for a simple reason: They work. Let me repeat one more time: There currently is no Federal mask requirement in place, so let's not continue to waste more time when we need to proceed with getting appropriations bills funded. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.