Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the House Republican 2024 Legislative Branch funding bill. This bill falls short of ensuring we can continue to grow a strong and well-functioning legislative branch that is essential to our democracy. As an institution, we should be increasing our ability to serve our constituents and recruit and retain talented staff and United States Capitol Police officers. We should not merely be treading water. This bill eliminates the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and does nothing to facilitate the use of funds for collective bargaining rights for congressional staffers. This bill also does not allow legislative branch agencies to employ individuals who are authorized for employment under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act, DACA. We made progress in the last Congress, but this bill will take us backwards. Ranking Member Espaillat said during the markup of this bill, but I believe it is a point that we should emphasize again today: We all have an obligation to make sure that our staff, whether they serve here in Washington, D.C., or if they serve in our home districts, are safe. I support my colleague's efforts to increase funding to bolster that safety. This bill is not an appropriate venue for divisive and partisan language, especially the extreme and offensive culture wars riders that House Republicans have placed in each one of the appropriations bills that we have considered. We should be working together to ensure that the Congress is able to serve the American people, complete the people's business safely, securely, and efficiently, our political differences notwithstanding. Bipartisan, bicameral legislation is required to keep the government open. Otherwise, the President will not sign a bill. Bipartisan, bicameral legislation is required to fully fund the legislative branch. It is time for House Republicans to abandon a partisan path to nowhere and to join House Democrats at the negotiation table. We have wasted enough time. Let us move forward. We are here. We are ready to get to work for the American people. For all of these reasons, I cannot support this bill, and I ask others not to support it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was attending a bipartisan briefing at the White House to review and discuss the funding needs for our national security. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 547 and NAY on Roll Call No. 548.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am devastated by Hamas' brutal attacks on innocent civilians in Israel, which include taking children, women, and elderly people hostage. I strongly stand by our ally Israel and unequivocally support its right to defend itself. This vicious assault was enabled by Iran, which has publicly praised the attacks. Now more than ever, it is vital that the United States does not walk away from its global commitment to defend democracy. This war is against Hamas; it is not the Palestinian people. Palestinians have also lost communities and loved ones because of Hamas' atrocities. Israel has to end Hamas' role in Gaza, while we work together to minimize harm to civilian populations. Hamas' presence is an assault on humanity, and I want to work with the unity governmental in Israel to create the conditions for peace again. As ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, I am intent on ensuring that we do everything that we can to provide the humanitarian and military assistance that is necessary for Israel to recover from this devastation and continue to defend itself.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, last year, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill lowered energy costs for families, created good-paying jobs by growing and supporting a robust clean energy sector and rebuilding water infrastructure, promoted American energy independence, strengthened our national security, and ensured American energy outcompeted China. Sadly, this is not what this year's bill does. The majority has put forth a bill that cuts domestic energy investments by a staggering 25.4 percent or $6.4 billion lower than last year--with the consequences of increasing energy costs for American families at a time when families are living paycheck to paycheck and struggling with the high cost of living. This bill undermines growth and modernization of our energy infrastructure, weakens our national security, and it would yield leadership of the world's energy future to our greatest adversaries. As much as my Republican colleagues may refuse overwhelming evidence, deny scientific consensus, and ignore the catastrophic natural disasters becoming more severe and more common in their districts and across the country, we have no choice but to transform our energy sector to reflect our climate reality. The only path that addresses climate change, reduces our dependence on fossil fuels, and curbs our reliance on foreign energy is to diversify how we produce and store energy: wind, solar, hydroelectric, hydrogen, and geothermal. When it comes to addressing climate and driving a robust energy sector, our answer to the question of ``how'' must be ``everything under the sun.'' The Department of Energy's clean energy programs drive down energy costs, making it cheaper to expand domestic energy sources. For energy efficiency and renewable energy, the majority proposes cutting the Department of Energy's budget by $1.5 billion or 42 percent from the 2023 level. This office researches and develops manufacturing, building, energy management, and weatherization technologies that are critical to our Nation's growth and resilience. That is nearly half a billion dollars that will not be invested in our economic, energy, and climate future. Furthermore, Republicans would cut $4.5 billion from the High- Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Program. That program helps 250,000 low- and moderate-income households save upwards of $1 billion on their energy bills annually, which creates 50,000 new jobs. There is a $1 billion cut from the Assistance for Latest and Zero Building Energy Code Adoption, and $200 million from the State-based Home Energy Efficiency Contractor Training Grants. It means that if American families want to reduce their home energy consumption and lower their monthly bills, my Republican colleagues say ``no.'' We must be innovative, creative, and aggressive in fighting for a clean energy future to make America resilient in the face of climate change, which is why it is irresponsible to cut $15 billion from the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program. That program supports critical projects that, for example, remove air pollutants that can cause asthma and cancer from the atmosphere. After watching the skies turn orange over parts of the East Coast and Midwest this summer, I would hope that we could agree that air pollution is a bad thing. Perhaps the majority feels differently. Sustainability, at its core, is a demand that we responsibly steward the planet and its natural resources to future generations. The majority fails this demand. If the proposed abandonment of America's energy future and of our ability to build a robust and diversified energy industry were not enough reason to vote against this bill, then the offensive political riders on race, gender, and sexuality should be. The majority continues to break the deal that the Speaker struck with the President earlier this year to avert a default. Democrats and Republicans from the House and Senate need to begin the process of negotiating and finding common ground to pass bipartisan appropriations bills immediately. Pursuing these partisan bills all but guarantees we will need another continuing resolution in 3 weeks. Continuing resolutions may keep the government open, but they are no way to govern. There is no excuse to be considering bills written to appease a minority of this Chamber, who we know will not vote to fund the government. For all of these reasons, I cannot support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise today to include in the Record the following quotes from numerous non-profit, faith-based, and advocacy organizations expressing their national security concerns with the House Republicans' 2024 State and Foreign Operations spending plans: The Global Health Council, together with 70+ additional organizations, stated the following: Global Health Council and 70+ Organizations ``As a community of global health and development advocates, we are deeply concerned with the steep cuts being proposed to the House State and Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPS) budget at a time when the world is facing concurrent destabilizing events, such as the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, further instability and food insecurity caused by the war in Ukraine, and the continuous threat of emerging infectious diseases. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 budget being proposed by the House Appropriations SFOPS Subcommittee falls woefully short of the resources needed to address these converging crises and severely undercuts critical global health and humanitarian assistance programs, which are a key component of how the U.S. engages with the world. According to the U.S. Agency for International Development, these cuts would reverse gains made to combat infectious diseases, including through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), programs to prevent maternal and childhood deaths, and funds to support health workers and global health security. This bill is a dangerous signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. is ceding leadership on the global stage . . .'' The Catholic Relief Services released the following statement (excerpt): Catholic Relief Services Executive Vice President Bill O'Keefe ``Recognizing we are a blessed nation, strong bipartisan majorities have long supported humanitarian and development aid that has saved millions of lives, contributed to greater stability and rolled back global health threats, such as HIV. The House's current proposal is a departure from this legacy and threatens the lives of many around the world as well as our national security.'' The United States Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC) released the following statements: Former Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper ``America's leadership in the world cannot be left to doubt. When we don't lead, we create a vacuum that will be filled instead by China, which has only increased its spending on defense, diplomacy, and development. America's leadership means more than just military capability; diplomacy and foreign assistance are part of it too. This proposed budget would upend that relationship by gutting our civilian toolkit and depriving America of the diplomatic leadership whose benefits I have seen last a lifetime.'' Admiral James Stavridis ``Senior military leaders have seen first-hand around the world the risks of instability to national security, and we know that responding to these threats requires more than just a strong military. Significant cuts to our nation's civilian national security toolkit in the International Affairs Budget would chart a dangerous course for the United States at this pivotal moment.'' USGLC President and CEO Liz Schrayer ``Cutting nearly one-third of America's footprint in the world would be dangerous to our national security and economic interests--undermining America's ability to compete and win on the global stage while ceding influence to China. If enacted, this would be the lowest funding level for our diplomacy and development toolbox in a generation at a time when America is facing the greatest threats since the Cold War . . .'' The American Jewish Committee stated the following (excerpt): American Jewish Committee ``We are concerned by drastic cuts to the proposed FY24 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations bill. At just 1% of the federal budget, the international affairs budget is a strategic investment that advances America's interests around the world. Strong, principled American leadership in global affairs is the best protection for our national security interests, the preservation and advancement of democratic values and human dignity, and the security of our closest allies.'' InterAction released the following statement (excerpt): InterAction ``The proposed inadequate funding levels will forcefully cut short life-saving programs and weaken the United States' position as a global leader. The lack of investment compels nations, including American allies, to seek alternative solutions, accumulate more debt, or worse, go without life- saving support. As a result, the most vulnerable people will face heightened risks, leading to a more unstable world and diminishing the influence of America.'' The ONE Campaign released the following statement (excerpt): President of The ONE Campaign Tom Hart ``Foreign assistance, especially development funding, is an incredibly important tool to advance America's foreign policy, national security, and economic priorities. It is not a handout--it is a strategic investment that can lift millions out of poverty, turn the tide against deadly diseases, strengthen our economy, and make America safer. These shortsighted cuts will have long-term consequences, jeopardize our investments, and hurt the American taxpayer.'' The Christian Connections for International Health released the following statement (excerpt): Christian Connections for International Health ``Christian Connections for International Health (CCIH) is alarmed and extremely disappointed that the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations is proposing to drastically reduce funding to life-saving programs. We believe this abandons the U.S. leadership role on the global stage and undermines decades of progress toward sustainable health.'' CARE USA released the following statement (excerpt):

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I just say to you that maybe you have had the chance to read 71 pages. This bill doesn't extend the authority to help Ukrainian refugees.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have had 15 minutes to review a 71-page document, a document that was filed before midnight last night. There hasn't been any time for staff to review a 71-page document on such an important issue that we are facing. It demonstrates a lack of responsibility, and a lack of a willingness to have a bipartisan agreement on a continuing resolution. I rise in strong opposition to the bill. The day before the government shuts down, the majority is still throwing anything that they can at the wall to see if anything sticks. House Republicans have already proven that they cannot and they will not pass a continuing resolution on their own, even one with outlandish spending cuts that could never pass the Senate or be signed into law. A bipartisan, bicameral solution is the only way forward. I worked on these efforts last December, and House Republicans at that time decided not to participate with the Senate Republicans. With Senator Shelby and Senator Leahy, we hammered out a budget for 2023. The Speaker knows the bipartisan Senate continuing resolution would easily garner a majority in this House of Representatives. Yet, he refuses to let it go to the floor of the House. What is he afraid of? What are we trying instead? Yesterday, Republicans voted to defund our support for our allies in the Middle East, including a billion-dollar cut to Israel, with a further cut to Jordan. That did not work, so today, the target is Ukraine, despite the fact that it is the majority's will, demonstrated several times this week, to provide support for Ukraine's self-defense. The Biggs amendment that would strike all Ukraine security assistance initiative funds from the defense bill failed, 104-330. The Gaetz amendment that would have prohibited all funding for Ukraine in the defense bill failed, 93-339. A Greene amendment to prohibit assistance to Ukraine in the State and foreign operations bill failed, 90-342. This body voted to separately fund Ukraine after it was stripped from the defense bill in the darkness of night, and that was 311-117. Mr. Speaker, the appeasement strategy of the far right does not have majority support in this body. Standing with our allies does have support here, which is tried-and-true American patriotism, American justice, American views, and their values for freedom and the fight for democracy. That is who we are. That is what we are about. Those who would do otherwise, it is shameful, shameful in bringing down the United States of America and its support for those people who seek freedom in our world today. Department of Defense officials recently sent letters to the four corners of the Congress. Under Secretary McCord writes: ``Without additional funding now, we would have to delay or curtail assistance to meet Ukraine's urgent requirements, including for air defense and ammunition that are critical and urgent now as Russia prepares to conduct a winter offensive and continues its bombardment of Ukrainian cities.'' Then he continues: ``Delays to additional funding would also be perceived by Ukraine as a sign of wavering U.S. support and likely as a betrayal of our previous commitments. Allies and partners are also unlikely to sustain their increased level of support without clear, continuing U.S. leadership. As you know, Secretary Austin successfully engages over 50 nations every month to press for sustained support. It is crucial that the U.S. continues to lead this global coalition--`` the United States should lead--``and we need the resources to underwrite our leadership role.'' House Republicans have shown that they are unwilling and they are unable to govern. Some have shown they are willing and they are able to abandon our allies. It is time for this body, for my Republican colleagues, to abandon the Gaetz strategy or the Greene strategy and try, as we have in the past, for a bipartisan strategy that we all know will ultimately conclude the shutdown and fully fund the United States government. A shutdown will hurt families and farmers, children and servicemembers at a time when families are living paycheck to paycheck. Let us keep the U.S. Government open. Let us proceed with a bipartisan, bicameral agreement as has been proposed by the United States Senate and let us continue to support Ukraine's fight for freedom. Mr. Speaker, let's get to work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), for the purpose of a colloquy.

Ms. DeLAURO. Yes, I do. I strongly support the Senate version.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I find it very strange, indeed, that there is no mention of several things, at least preliminarily which we have looked at in this bill. There are many changes between this bill, as the gentleman asked me, and the Senate bill. There are many changes. The gentleman from New York should understand that there are many changes between this bill and the Senate bill. Here is one that I believe the majority will not mention. They amended the Senate bill to give themselves a pay raise--a pay raise. It is there. Yeah. You can look at me, you can smile, but what you did was you amended the Senate bill to give yourselves a pay raise while you have threatened day in and day out servicemembers; you have threatened workers across this country, and you have said to them, we don't really care about you and whether or not you can support your family. We don't care about that. No. We mainly care about ourselves and our pay raise. It is pretty true to form with what the American people think about Members, but they should know which Members are willing to give them up in their own self-interest for a pay raise. It is despicable. You are about to shut the government down, but hours before you do so, you give yourself a pay raise. It is pathetic.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, if I might, I would like to read a letter that was sent by the Under Secretary of Defense, Michael McCord. The letter was sent to the Speaker of the House as well as to the Senate majority and minority leaders. It is addressed to Leader Jeffries. ``I write to express the Department of Defense's deep concern with the absence of security assistance funding for Ukraine in the continuing resolution being considered in the House . . . or any similar continuing resolution that might be proposed. The Department of Defense is anxious to avoid a lapse in appropriations, but it is important that a CR protect our security interests and uphold our commitments and our values. ``As you know, the Department has been providing vital security assistance to Ukraine since Russia's unprovoked invasion in February 2022, thanks to the bipartisan support of Congress. It is just as vital today that we continue that support. ``Today, DOD has exhausted nearly all available security assistance funding for Ukraine. We are already out of funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, one of the two security assistance tools we have. ``The other funding tool we need are those funds provided to replenish our military's inventories for the weapons and supplies we've provided to support Ukraine in their fight via drawdown. We have only $1.6 billion remaining of the $25.9 billion Congress has provided. We have already been forced to slow down the replenishment of our own forces to hedge against an uncertain funding future--'' our own forces. ``Failure to replenish our military services on a timely basis could harm our military's readiness. ``Without additional funding now, we would have to delay our curtail assistance to meet Ukraine's urgent requirements, including for air defense and ammunition that are critical and urgent now as Russia prepares to conduct a winter offensive and continues its bombardment of Ukrainian cities. For example, a lack of USAI funding now will delay contracting actions that could negatively impact the Department's ability to purchase essential additional 155-millimeter artillery and critical munitions essential for the success of Ukraine's Armed Forces. ``This ammunition is critical to sustaining Ukraine's Armed Forces, including for their ongoing counteroffensive. An inability to ensure timely procurement and deliveries could undermine essential Ukrainian operations to retake additional territory or defend against potential future Russian offensives. ``It would also affect our ability to support Ukraine's land forces, including obstacle breaching equipment, sustainment of previously provided small Unmanned Aerial Systems, systems to detect, analyze, and locate adversary signals, and demolitions equipment. It would affect training, maintenance, and sustainment of the equipment we have previously provided, exportability efforts, spare parts, and other activities to ensure the Ukrainian Armed Forces receive a full capability. ``A funding cutoff would also send a negative signal to our defense industrial base, which we have asked to step up munitions production across the country, resulting in increased defense capacity and higher employment. We cannot afford to throw that progress away. In fact, we are counting on it to implement our national defense strategy. It is important to note that from workers supporting Stinger and AMRAAM manufacturing in Arizona to factories producing components for Patriot interceptors and GMLRS in Arkansas, this funding is strengthening the American economy and creating hundreds of new American jobs. ``Some have suggested that the Department could still execute the mission and support Ukraine's needs if it were given permission to transfer funds from inside a short-term CR from our own needs to fund more security assistance. To be clear, the Department does not support that approach, which will create an unacceptable risk to us. Under a CR, the Department will be operating at a level approximately $25 billion below our budget request for FY 2024, which was and is consistent with the Fiscal Responsibility Act funding levels. ``The bottom line is we cannot sustain adequate levels of Ukraine assistance with transfer authority alone. ``Delays to additional funding would also be perceived by Ukraine as a sign of wavering U.S. support and likely as a betrayal of our previous commitments. Allies and partners are also unlikely to sustain their increased level of support without clear, continuing U.S. leadership. As you know, Secretary Austin successfully engages over 50 nations every month to press for sustained support. It is crucial that the U.S. continues to lead this global coalition, and we need the resources to underwrite our leadership role. ``The Department appreciates your leadership on this vital matter, and I am sending an identical letter to the Speaker of the House, as well as the Senate majority and minority leaders.'' Michael McCord, the Under Secretary for Defense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would make reference to page 7 of the 71- page document. In the Senate bill, I might add, they include a line that says the Senate bill includes the blocking or the prohibition on a Member pay raise. That has been dropped from the bill that has just been proposed.

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 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.

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

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just so I can reiterate what I had said earlier, we now have really the language in both the Senate bill and in the House bill, and it is really not so clean a continuing resolution as it has been portrayed. This strikes the Member pay prohibition, in effect, giving Members a pay raise. Let me just explain. If you have a copy of the bill, on page 7--in the Senate bill, there is language that the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, what division it is, et cetera. Section 6, really what it does is the Senate bill prohibits the movement toward a Member pay raise. Now, what the House Republicans have done is, page 7, line 13, what they do, they just drop that part of the language that comes from the Senate bill. In essence, what they have done is to provide themselves with a pay raise. I think that you haven't given us time to read the 71 pages. I am hopeful that all of you have had the opportunity to read the 71 pages.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have shown they are unwilling and unable to govern. Some have shown they are willing and able to abandon our allies. Russian tyranny and aggression threaten more than just Ukraine's borders. We learned in Georgia, and we learned in Crimea, if you stand by while Russia takes an inch, they will take a mile. Vladimir Putin must be held to account for upending Europe's security in peacetime for a pointless and bloody war, which has disrupted energy markets and triggered food insecurity around the world. We must be clear about what this means, plain and simple. This is appeasement like the world experienced in 1938, which led to a cascading, murderous result. Ukraine's fight for democracy and sovereignty requires decisive action and absolute support from the free world. We must act like the leaders of the free world. We must not abandon our position as the world's beacon of democratic values. We must not surrender our global influence to Russia, China, or any group that threatens democracies. Members of this body have come together again and again to reaffirm our commitment to helping Ukraine defend itself against vicious invasion. Let us keep the government open, and let us proceed to make sure that we do not abandon our allies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note here that, first of all, I am very interested that there was a rereading of the bill as it came from the House and from the Senate and that there is a view that it needs to be reviewed in some way because, in fact, as the bill stands, there is a pay raise that is being done, in addition to which there are student loan efforts that are thwarted, as well, making it more difficult for about 45 million borrowers to be able to get the kind of services that they need. I really want to make the point that I have had the opportunity to chair the Appropriations Committee for 2 years--and for those 2 years, with a 3- or 4-person majority--with the assistance of colleagues in the House and in the Senate. Last December, it was honestly just in the Senate because House Republicans refused to participate in the negotiations. I think there were very few, in the continuing resolution that we put forward, Republicans who voted for a continuing resolution. I think, if I recall the number precisely, it was nine, but it allowed us to be able to hammer out the bills over the next several weeks until December. At that juncture, what we did was we came together. We hammered out the bills. No one got everything that they wanted, but we could pass the bill. Now, I move forward to what happened last May and last June when there was a budget agreement that was hammered out by the President and the Speaker of the House. To be very honest with you, I did not vote for that budget agreement. I would have never let this Nation default, but I was very concerned about the harm that was going to be done to the people of this country through the appropriations process that was established by the majority, and that was to significantly cut $142 billion from the services that we provide. That is education, mental health services, medical research services. All of that, I viewed, was going to be curtailed. It is the law of the land. It is civics. When the House passes something, the Senate passes something, the President signs the bill, it is the law of the land. The Speaker of the House and the Republicans in this House walked away from that agreement, and that is why we stand where we are today in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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