Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I congratulate Chairman Aderholt on his first bill as chairman of the subcommittee. I thank the minority staff--particularly Stephen Steigleder,…
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I congratulate Chairman Aderholt on his first bill as chairman of the subcommittee. I thank the minority staff--particularly Stephen Steigleder, Philip Tizzani, Laurie Mignone, and Jackie Kilroy--for all of their hard work, as well as the majority staff, Susan Ross, Kathryn Salmon, James Redstone, Emily Goff, and Laura Stagno. As I have often said, they keep our names on the door, so many thanks to all.
Mr. Chair, I have never seen an appropriations bill quite like this one. I have never seen a bill that was this inhumane and which defies all the values and ideals of a society which promises to address the needs and the challenges of its people.
In Charles Dickens' ``Great Expectations,'' Pip observes the Pocket family children as ``not growing up or being brought up, but were tumbling up.'' This bill leaves America's children tumbling up.
This bill is the largest domestic appropriations bill, and for good reason. The programs funded in Labor-HHS-Education ensure that our workforce is strong, our families are healthy and safe, and our children's future is secure.
Indeed, last Congress, we passed a Labor-HHS bill that supported middle-class working families, lifted up vulnerable Americans, and prepared our Nation for future crises, which makes it even more disappointing to see where we have ended up in this year's process.
The majority's 2024 Labor-HHS-Education bill and its 28 percent cut of $64 billion bring us back to a level unseen since 2008. It heralds their intent to end public education in the United States. This bill eliminates present and future job opportunities for young adults, seniors, and working families. It jeopardizes maternal, pediatric, and public health.
This bill is shameful, which is presumably the reason why it was never marked up or voted on by the full Appropriations Committee.
As disappointed as I am to see the authority of the Appropriations Committee surrendered, sadly, based on where the majority has taken this entire process, it is not surprising.
Mr. Chair, 154 days ago, the House Appropriations Committee held its first full committee markup of the 2024 bill. Nine more followed. This bill was not one of them.
Nonetheless, the House majority circumvented the committee process. They air-dropped five new poison pill riders into the Labor-HHS bill without any bipartisan consultation or vote by the committee.
We are left to assume that the majority knew this bill had no path forward in committee, and they know it has no path forward, period.
Horace Mann called education ``the great equalizer.'' Perhaps, then, it is the majority's aversion to equality that explains why they cut 28 percent from the Department of Education.
They will take at least 224,000 teachers out of low-income classrooms and eviscerate the programs that help at-risk youth build a bright future. This cut would entail a loss of 3,700 teachers in Alabama, 800 teachers in Idaho, 4,400 teachers in Maryland, 4,300 teachers in Tennessee, 6,500 teachers in Michigan, 5,000 teachers in Louisiana, 8,300 teachers in Georgia, 1,500 teachers in Kansas, 22,300 teachers in Texas, and 4,400 teachers in Arizona. Explain that to your constituents.
I am deeply concerned about the impact such a colossal retraction from public education funding would have on children across our country.
This bill tells the story of where the majority seeks to take this country. Republicans have made it clear they are opposed to public education, and they seek to destroy it.
Quality education will no longer be accessible to working families, but it will be accessible, again, to the purview of the rich.
I must underscore that point. This is no messaging bill. This is their Commitment to America. I am taking Republicans at their word, as should all American people. This is what they want to do.
When 161 House Republicans voted earlier this year to eliminate all K-12 funding at the Department of Education in the Massie amendment to H.R. 5, I was horrified, but that was only the beginning.
House Republicans are in lockstep behind the most extreme ideologues in their party. Just this summer, former Secretary Betsy DeVos penned an op-ed calling to eliminate the Department of Education.
The Heritage Foundation's budget blueprint includes a proposal to eliminate the Department of Education.
Former OMB Director Russ Vought wants massive funding reductions to ``thwart'' a public education system he sees as ``an existential threat to the American Republic.''
We are witnessing a widespread attack on public education that should shock every American family. If left to their own devices, Republicans will gleefully take public education to the graveyard.
How will this bill move us closer toward those ends?
English language acquisition funding to help 5 million English learners nationwide is eliminated, disadvantaging and discriminating against students who primarily speak another language and restraining their future ability to compete and succeed in the economy.
Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, which provide professional development opportunities for educators, are completely gone.
Federal work-study is no more for the 660,000 students who need it to help finance their postsecondary education. It limits their potential earnings and future success in the job market.
Nearly $1 billion is cut from the supplemental educational opportunity grants, which eliminate need-based financial aid for 1.7 million students nationwide.
Promise Neighborhoods, social and emotional learning grants, and magnet schools are all completely erased, as well.
The programs that are not completely abolished in this bill are so poorly funded as to be completely nonfunctional.
A $14.7 billion cut from title I, the very foundation of public education in America, is patently unthinkable and would remove hundreds of thousands of teachers from classrooms, directly harming children in every single one of our districts.
Students nationwide are struggling with rising college costs, and this bill provides no relief by freezing the maximum Pell grant for the first time in 12 years.
I believe we all agree that we have a crisis in our Nation's classrooms, but rather than address the teacher shortage and fully fund our children's future, our Nation's future, the majority's solution is to abolish the public classroom altogether. If you cannot afford a private education for your children, well, too bad.
This is the every child left behind act. Regardless of your age or stage in life, this bill means you can't count on your country for assistance in getting back on your feet.
Youth job training, adult job training, Job Corps, and senior community service employment programs are all eliminated. If you want to work and just need help finding the right job or finding a better job, this bill has nothing to offer you.
They are putting workers who do find jobs at risk by cutting $313 million for worker protection agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The 30 percent cut to the Wage and Hour Division, the agency that is tasked with enforcing wage law and ensuring that our children are not working illegally, will send the rights of workers in this country back to a time before World War II.
This bill hangs working families out to dry. Healthy Start, diaper distribution, teen pregnancy prevention, title X family planning--all abolished.
With riders that block access to abortions and reproductive healthcare services and force providers to withhold critical information about healthcare options, it is clear in this area that the majority does not trust women to make their own decisions, and where they are taking us is moving down a road to a nationwide abortion ban.
These provisions amount to the majority simultaneously ensuring anyone who may get pregnant will get pregnant, teenagers included, and there are no resources or lifelines available to help those children and their families.
People can only hope that they do not get cancer. You will not find support from House Republicans. From the National Institutes of Health, over $2 billion is cut from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are as outrageous as they are dangerous. Firearm injury prevention, tobacco prevention, and ending the HIV epidemic, which, by the way, was an initiative of President Donald Trump, Republicans have decided that addressing these problems is not worth a single dollar to the American people.
What should we be doing if not combating the leading causes of death in this country? What should we fund if not the health and future of America's families? Supporting our children and working families is the bare minimum of what the greatest country in the world should do for its people, but this bill goes well below the bare minimum.
This bill steals from our children's future, from our families' health, and from Americans' livelihood. It abandons young adults. It stifles biomedical innovation. It surrenders to current and future public health crises. It hurts women with poison pill riders on abortion.
Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I vehemently oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Lee), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her strong voice, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is incredulous the scope of this bill and its damage to the American people, their healthcare, their education, and their opportunity for a job and their future.
Just quickly, in the Department of Labor: Adult Job Training; Youth Job Training; Job Corps; Senior Community Service Employment; the Bureau of International Labor Affairs; the Women's Bureau, the Women's Bureau that helps women find jobs in nontraditional areas, these are all eliminated. They are eliminated.
Let's go now to the Department of Health and Human Services: Title X Family Planning; Healthy Start; Ryan White Ending the HIV Epidemic, something that George Bush and Donald Trump wanted to provide funding for, eliminated.
Nursing Workforce Diversity. We have a shortage of nurses today. We need to be recruiting and training nurses to be able to take care of patients, to be able to administer healthcare.
I always classify nurses as angels of mercy. They were with me every single day when I was in the hospital a number of years ago for a period of time. The doctors could look at me, they did great surgery, but it was the nurses who looked at me, and they could tell whether it was a good day or a bad day, and they were there for comfort and care. But, no, we don't want to train and recruit nurses.
The CDC, Tobacco Prevention and Control--my God, we have gone to such an extent to really cut back on addiction and not to make kids addicted in our country.
Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention. This is research and the same kind of research we did with regard to understanding how good seatbelts were and how they could save people. This is not taking anyone's gun away. This is about public health, but, no, that is eliminated.
Global HIV/AIDS, the CDC's contribution to PEPFAR--launched by George Bush--all eliminated. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Minority AIDS. My God, we are suffering a mental health crisis in this country, but, no, the Republicans would eliminate that.
Preschool Development Grants, Adult Protective Services Formula Grants, all eliminated.
Now, the Department of Education. Effective Instruction State Grants, eliminated. Social and Emotional Learning, eliminated. Civics--we find today that young people, older people, don't know anything about the American government. They don't know who does what at local, State, or federal. They don't engage in a dialogue with one another so that you can get to some sort of a rapprochement, understand what is being done in government. No, Republicans don't want a literate society, so let's eliminate civics.
Magnet Schools Assistance, Promise Neighborhoods, the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants. My God, the kids who need financial assistance.
Federal Work-Study, let me mention that one, because today, working families, middle-class families, vulnerable families, are having a tough time. They are going paycheck to paycheck. Yeah, you know what? They want their kids to go to school to get an education. You know what? Their kids are willing to work. They will go to the library. They will do those jobs with the Federal Work-Study Program.
When I talk about Republicans wanting to eliminate public education, this is a very good example, because you cut off the opportunity for that child to be able to work and to help his parents support him in getting an education.
Who are we and what are we about with this bill?
I could go on, but what would be the point? That is what this bill is about. As I said, it is not a messaging bill. This is where the majority wants to take us. They want to eliminate public education in this Nation.
I come from an immigrant family whose parents could dare dream their daughter serves in the United States House of Representatives. I can hear, day in and day out, my folks who have now passed who said: Get an education. Get an education. They sacrificed for that education, and we have a majority of this body who wants to take it away.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendments en bloc, and in support of the amendment with regard to the CDC ALS registry, which increases the funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, ALS, Registry.
I cannot talk about ALS without acknowledging the remarkable Ady Barkan, who died earlier this month. ALS is a cruel disease. Ady and Brian Wallach, who continues his own battle against ALS, are two of the amazing advocates who are changing the face of medical advocacy in this country. I support this amendment in their honor.
The ALS Registry collects and analyzes information about persons with ALS in the United States. It advances our understanding of the disease. With approximately 30,000 participants, the ALS Registry has provided crucial information to guide future research.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to support another amendment in the en bloc.
This is the Congressman Gottheimer's amendment with regard to safe school drinking water. I rise in support of the amendment, and I thank the Representative for sponsoring the amendment and allowing this time to talk about the importance of safe drinking water at schools.
Children are more susceptible to lead exposure because their bodies are still rapidly developing. Approximately 400,000 schools and childcare centers are served by a lead service line or pipes and other fixtures.
Let me be clear. There is no amount of lead that can be tolerated in the body. We know what happened in Flint, Michigan. Thousands of children were lead poisoned.
I met most recently with medical staff who was trying to work with these children, because of their brain, their slow development, et cetera, all as a result of a political decision allowing for the contamination of water with lead and lead poisoning so many thousands of children in Flint, Michigan.
That is why clean and safe drinking water at schools is so critically important. That is our responsibility. The CDC funding allows health departments to develop partnerships with schools, daycare facilities, and early childhood education centers to strengthen blood lead testing reporting and link lead-exposed children to recommended services. The earlier they get their services, the more likely they are to be able to grow and thrive.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
For over 50 years, the mission of the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance.
OSHA is responsible for making sure employers provide safe workplaces. 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.
During that time, OSHA issued lifesaving standards for asbestos, lead, carcinogens, chemical exposure, and blood-borne pathogens. Do we not want standards for those illnesses and disasters?
The agency has enforced these standards and provided assistance to employers to keep American workers safe on the job.
Make no mistake, by eliminating all funding for OSHA, this amendment results in an unconscionable spike in workplace injury, illness, and death.
In the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report, there were 2.8 million nonfatal workplace injuries in 2022. This is up 7\1/2\ percent over 2021. In 2021, there were 5,190 workplace fatalities. That is up 8.9 percent.
This is a reckless amendment. This says we don't care what kind of conditions workers are working in and that we ought to go back to the industrial revolution. It should be clear. This is a reckless amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, this amendment and the prior one are indicative of the majority's willingness to put workers' health and safety at risk.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Public servants should be commended and not demonized.
Our Federal Government needs talented, intelligent, hardworking people who are willing to bring their skills to public service.
Proposing to eliminate the salaries of hardworking public servants is petty. It really is beneath the dignity of this body. It is not how we should solve differences of opinion on policy.
For 45 years, the mission of the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration has been to ensure that miners can return home from work every day to their families and their communities safe and healthy.
When MSHA was created in 1977, the fatality rate in the mining industry was more than four times greater than the average for all industries in the United States. Since then, mining fatalities have dropped sharply as MSHA has established and enforced workplace safety standards and worked together with all stakeholders to prevent fatalities.
For fiscal year 2024, MSHA is prioritizing additional actions to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities involving customer and contract truck drivers, falls from heights, and lack of use of personal protective equipment.
Taking out the agency's top enforcement official, as this amendment seeks to do while MSHA completes this important work, would be reckless and irresponsible.
In addition, it is particularly shameful that this amendment targets a nonpolitical Federal employee who is part of our Federal civil service.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this vindictive amendment, which I believe is small and is petty, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
First of all, Mr. Chair, let me correct the record here. The Job Corps provision was not a drafting error.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Treasure Island, a former naval installation island between Oakland and San Francisco, was closed in the 1990s and is undergoing a major redevelopment.
Treasure Island Job Corps is one of the best-performing sites in the country and serves over 430 students with outdated and crumbling buildings. It is located on a sizable piece of land in the middle of the island.
The Department of Labor and Treasure Island Development Authority, TIDA, are jointly examining the possibility of selling or exchanging land from the Department of Labor to the Treasure Island Development Authority to allow for additional housing development on the island in exchange for building a brand-new campus for Job Corps within a smaller portion of their current site.
Longstanding language on this matter has been included in appropriations bills since 2018. This language waives potential barriers to an exchange, allowing the Department to retain the proceeds from a sale to rebuild a more compact Job Corps site within its current boundaries.
There is no cost--let me repeat--no cost to the Federal Government. For years, Congress has recognized this as a win-win: a new Job Corps facility without additional appropriations and badly needed additional housing in the area.
This amendment strikes the reference to Treasure Island in a general provision specific to that Job Corps site and inserts the name of a different Job Corps site from the author's State of Texas.
This amendment is silly and nonsensical, and it breaks from years of precedent around this language.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, the amendment would cut funding for the National Institute of Nursing Research by $19 million. I support $10 million for health workforce training, but I am in total opposition to a $19 million cut to the National Institute of Nursing Research.
The National Institute of Nursing Research supports research that develops the scientific basis for nursing practice. For example, the NINR is supporting a research initiative to assess changes in organizational factors that could mitigate or prevent nurse burnout, which we know to be one of the primary causes of a nursing shortage and of people leaving the profession.
NINR also supports initiatives such as the AIM of care initiative to address high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality and to prevent adverse maternal health outcomes. Again, we know what a serious issue this is in our Nation with maternal morbidity and mortality. Women are dying. They look at these efforts to try to give us the best information and data possible.
The National Institute of Nursing Research supports training opportunities to develop doctorly trained nurse
scientists at schools of nursing throughout the United States.
By cutting funding for the National Institute of Nursing Research, this amendment would reduce funding for nursing faculty, which would result in schools of nursing turning away many qualified applicants. Let me just say that, in 2020, over 80,000 qualified applicants were not accepted at schools of nursing primarily due to a shortage of clinical sites, faculty, and resources.
This institute is already underfunded and underappreciated, which is true of all nursing professions. Maybe that is why HRSA estimates that the nursing shortage will grow from 56,000 to 78,000 by 2025.
More importantly, this amendment demonstrates, once again, that overall funding in this bill is grossly insufficient. I support $10 million for training but not a $19 million cut.
We need to properly fund health workforce training and the National Institute of Nursing Research. We should not be forced to choose between nurses and nursing research.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip and former member of the Appropriations Committee and of the subcommittee, I might add.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Boebert
Mr. Chair, this amendment would reduce the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Public Health Scientific Services account by $158 million.
Bringing this account to the FY 2019 level, think about what it would eliminate: significant advancements in public health, negatively impacting the National Center for Health Statistics, laboratory science, and public health data modernization efforts.
I have personal propriety on data modernization. I championed the establishment of a public health data modernization initiative in fiscal year 2020, just prior to the pandemic, I might add. This massive undertaking is moving public health away from the fax machine and into the 21st century.
Think about what happened during the pandemic, with all of the laboratories around the country. I think about Connecticut, nearly shut down. It couldn't do its work because it didn't have the equipment, the modernization, the ability to collect data that makes it incredibly important for us to deal with a pandemic or any other disease.
I might add, this modernization initiative provides funding directly to 64 jurisdictions, including States, territories, large cities, and Tribes. Eliminating this funding impacts the entire country.
I suspect that my colleague on the other side of the aisle would agree with me that the local jurisdictions of public health need to have the capacity to do their job. This funding is critical to improving jurisdictions' public health decisionmaking capabilities. Some have very highly rated and forward-thinking decisionmaking capabilities, and they have what they need, but we have a lot of communities with minimal capacity.
This is really pretty extraordinary. We have people entering records by hand. They are writing their records out by hand or using software not designed for tracking outbreak data, to being able to publish provisional national death data on a weekly basis. Some places have no capacity to do this, and they are not reporting the data so that we have no idea what is happening.
We all want to know the scope of a foodborne or infectious disease outbreak in our community. I suspect my colleague wants that information for himself, his family, and for his constituents. We all do. However, that does not happen without the data first identifying the cases. Our public health data systems, laboratory resources, and the National Center for Health Statistics are already far behind where we need them to be, and this amendment would only make matters worse.
We should have learned a very, very big lesson from the pandemic, where our public health infrastructure in many instances crashed because of the lack of technology, the lack of data collection, the lack of modernizing their ability to collect that data.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment. I think it is not just for the emergency. We need to have a very, very strong public health infrastructure.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, let me just preface my comments by saying we are not scientists, and we are not doctors. Maybe some are. We may have one or two, but we are not in the business of scientific research or in the medical profession, for the most part.
This amendment calls for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct an exploratory study on the topic of a supplement, vitamin D deficiencies, and COVID mortality rates.
To make recommendations, Federal agencies leverage the results of multiple randomized control trials that form the same conclusion, which builds the scientific evidence for recommendations.
The National Institutes of Health and academic peers have consistently found that there is insufficient evidence for a recommendation either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.
Supplements are not a replacement for preventive measures like a vaccination. Studies are being conducted on more effective linkages between COVID-19 infection and preventive measures, including vaccination and ventilation. The CDC should be receiving additional investments for these studies, not being told to conduct a study on this supplement.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Let me tell you a brief story. I arrived at Congress in 1990. At the time--and this is on a bipartisan basis, and this had to do with women's health--what we discovered at the National Institutes of Health was that all the clinical trials on illnesses and diseases in the country, all the research, all science, and all of these diseases, the clinical trials had included only men--only men.
I don't think anyone would view that this is rocket science, that women are physiologically different than men.
On a bipartisan basis, the women--Nancy Johnson, Barbara Kennelly, Nancy Pelosi, Nita Lowey, and Marge Roukema--banded together and said this was crazy.
Women and minorities need to be included in clinical studies so that we do not just extrapolate data from clinical trials for men and apply it to women. Women and minorities deserved to be in those trials so that we could find out what was the best treatment, what was the best cure, and what was the best way to treat their health issues.
This is an amendment that would cut $10 million to the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH. One of the basic missions of NIGMS is to support the next generation of scientists. This amendment would reduce support for scientific trainees across every stage of their career trajectories, from supporting undergraduate and community college students in research experiences, to Ph.D. and clinician-scientist training, to postdoctoral training and the transition to a first scientific position.
Eliminating an office of diversity in biomedical research takes us backward when we moved forward all those years ago to talk about how biomedical research and discovery to cure had to include in the scientific endeavor, yes, men but also women and minorities.
This amendment would limit early stage investigators, who are a pipeline to a next generation of researchers for future scientific discoveries.
Mr. Chair, with all deference and respect for my colleague, this amendment is shortsighted and counterproductive, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in vehement opposition to this amendment. This amendment would eliminate all funding to the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which would eviscerate funding for research on minority health.
This is a lack of understanding of scientific discovery or discovery to cure. Frankly, it is appalling and disgusting. I will be calling for a roll call vote on this amendment. I want to know exactly which Members of the House of Representatives want to eliminate funding for research on minority health and health disparities.
The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities supports research on diseases and conditions that disproportionately affect minority populations--minorities, writ large.
The United States continues to experience persistent and preventable adverse health effects with a disproportionate burden on minority communities.
To take one example, chronic diseases are among the leading causes of death in the United States. Some racial or ethnic minority groups experience a higher prevalence of multiple chronic conditions. We need to continue research on interventions to reduce mortality from multiple chronic diseases such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, sickle cell disease, maternal mortality, obesity, asthma, heart disease, cancer, which continues to disproportionately affect minority communities.
The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities also supports researchers from backgrounds who are underrepresented in the biomedical research workforce.
I urge my colleagues to think about this amendment and how it lacks scientific understanding and the ability to use biomedical research as a discovery for a cure.
Oppose this amendment. I look forward to seeing the results of the recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I can't state strongly enough how much I oppose this amendment, which thwarts biomedical research to save people's lives. That is what is done in this area. That is what the NIH does. That is what the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities reviews. It is about saving lives. We have no more noble cause in this institution than to help to save people's lives, whoever they are.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would eliminate funding for the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health.
This amendment is shortsighted. It would undermine our ability to prevent and mitigate disease outbreaks around the world.
The Fogarty International Center has supported research training programs which have been vital to fighting emerging infectious diseases including Ebola and Zika.
Now, we dealt with Ebola in 2014, and we dealt with the Zika crisis in 2016. I know that the gentleman was not here at that time and really didn't experience what was happening both here in the U.S. and also internationally. The very fact is that Fogarty helped to train the people who were involved with on-the-ground responders to the Ebola and to the Zika crisis.
Moreover, Fogarty supports training programs for scientists in the United States and abroad who are engaged in prevention and treatment of diseases, such as malaria, dengue fever, and tuberculosis, all of which now have affected parts of the United States.
Fogarty programs have provided research training to 6,000 scientists worldwide. It contributes to biomedical innovation. It supports the next generation of researchers across the globe.
In addition, health innovations developed with foreign partners can be adapted to help solve health issues in the United States.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, in my continued opposition to this amendment, I suspect that my colleague is not interested in saving lives in West Africa, in Brazil, or in Haiti.
Once again, with prior amendments that were listed here today, the issue of the work of science and research in the pursuit of saving lives is what this institution should be about. We are not talking about helicopters, roads, bridges, or anything else. Fundamentally, we are addressing the issue of using the biomedical research which we have scientists engaged and involved in both for the United States and internationally. If it happens internationally, it happens in the United States. That is our job. There is no higher calling than to save lives here and abroad.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Unfortunately, this amendment is nothing more than a political stunt. It would cut funding to the National Institutes of Health's Office of the Director as a penalty for a research grant awarded years ago.
The grant awarded by NIH was subject to rigorous peer review and judged by reviewers to be a high priority due to the previous emergence of SARS-CoV in a bat population.
The grant application did not propose research to enhance coronaviruses to be more transmissible or virulent in humans. The NIH determined that the award did not involve research with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens.
The bat coronavirus sequences under this grant award showed that the viruses studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology under the NIH-funded grant were evolutionary, distant from SARS-CoV-2, and could not have been the source of SARS-CoV-2.
Essentially, this is a cut of $3.7 million as a penalty for funding research and thereby taking funds away from the NIH as well, which are sorely needed.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, this amendment would cut funding by $160 million to the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health.
During the time that I had the opportunity, for the 4 years that I served as chair of this subcommittee, we increased funding for NIH research by $8.4 billion, an increase of 21 percent above the 2019 level, and I might add, something I am really extremely proud of.
As chair and with Ranking Member Cole, we agreed on a bipartisan basis
for the increases to the NIH. I, again, feel very, very proud of the role that I was able to play with my colleague in providing additional funding for lifesaving research at the NIH, including research to develop cures or treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's, ALS, diabetes, the funding to develop a universal flu vaccine, and the funding to ensure that women are represented in clinical trials.
This amendment would undermine the progress that we made on a bipartisan basis over the last 4 years, and I urge my colleagues to please oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the gentleman knows this but, as another point, I will extol the virtues of Dr. Anthony Fauci and his scientific background and experience of what he has done to resolve issues of disease and cures in the United States of America and overseas.
Maybe the gentleman doesn't know, Dr. Fauci is no longer at the NIH. It is unbelievably stunning to me that we are listening to someone talk about how COVID came out of the NIH. What happened to all your other theories?
Mr. Chairman, this is really a conspiracy theory that we are generating here. For that reason, and probably for many, many other reasons that have no basis in science or in reality, I continue to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I am having trouble listening to a series of science deniers here this afternoon. That is really troubling.
The amendment would cut funding to the National Institutes of Health by an additional $3.6 billion.
The base bill already cuts NIH funding by $2.8 billion below what we are talking about in 2023. That is 2.8 and another 3.6. I think there was another amendment that took additional money, which means that this amendment would bring the overall funding cut to the NIH of $6.4 billion at the current funding levels.
That would mean drastic cuts to lifesaving research on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, ALS, diabetes, infectious diseases, and the list goes on and on and on.
This amendment would cut funding to the National Cancer Institute by an additional $710 million.
I am a 36-year survivor of ovarian cancer. I had the benefit of biomedical research. Why shouldn't other women have the benefit of biomedical research to save their lives with ovarian cancer, one of the biggest killers of women in the Nation?
This bill would also cut funding to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development by $175 million.
It would cut funding to the National Institute on Aging by $441 million. Let's tell that to all of our elder Americans with the issues that they have as they age. Let's cut back that research.
It would cut funding to the National Institute on Drug Abuse by $166 million. I continue to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how upset they are about addiction and drug abuse and the increase of that. What are we doing about it? This research addresses that issue.
It would cut funding to the National Institute of Mental Health by $200 million. Do we not understand that we had a crisis in mental health in this country before the pandemic, and we are in a serious crisis with mental health at all ages post-pandemic?
We want to cut the money for the research for mental health?
Put simply, this amendment would mean a drastic cut to scientific breakthroughs, cures to diseases, and lifesaving treatments.
Did you know that the United States has been the leader in the world in health and advancement. We have the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA. These are crown jewels in what health is about in the United States and the cures here and abroad. Why would we want to roll back our advancements in health, science, and medical achievements?
This does go backwards. Like I have said in prior amendments, our job with these bills is to save lives, not to be engaged in political diatribes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, let me say a couple of things because I am a strong supporter of BioShield.
Within the 2023 budget, I might add, there is $850 million. I am for emergency preparedness. The gentleman every year puts in requests for increases, and we put in increases every year for Project BioShield. However, what I am concerned about, which I will address, is the $59 million cut. I think we should continue to increase money every year for Project BioShield, but the amendment cuts funding for the buildings and facilities at the NIH by $59 million.
NIH currently has a backlog of nearly $4 billion in needed repairs, and during the 4 years that I served as chair of the subcommittee, we increased funding for the NIH buildings and facilities account from $200 million in 2019 to $350 million in 2023 to begin to address the long-term backlog in a responsible way. This amendment would undermine the progress we have made.
I might add, once again, this was on a bipartisan basis over the last 4 years that we agreed to the increases in the NIH buildings and facilities account as well as the increases in Project BioShield.
Cutting funding for NIH's buildings and facilities would exacerbate the backlog of repairs, potentially affecting NIH's intramural research projects if laboratories and facilities are degraded.
More importantly, this amendment demonstrates, once again, that overall funding in this bill is grossly insufficient. That is one of my biggest concerns about this bill. We need to properly fund Project BioShield and the National Institutes of Health. We should not be forced to choose between research facilities and emergency preparedness.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
As with the prior amendment, Mr. Chair, I support the National Strategic Stockpile very strongly, and I might say I strongly support it, so I don't oppose it.
As the chair of the subcommittee in the past, I have increased funding on a yearly basis for the stockpile. I know that the gentleman has made requests for increases, and we have met those increases with regard to the stockpile.
The question, once again, for me is cutting the buildings and facilities at the NIH by $119 million. I will repeat this: NIH has a backlog of nearly $4 billion in needed repairs. In the 4 years that I served on the subcommittee as chair, we increased the NIH building and facilities account from $200 million in 2019 to $350 million in 2023 to begin to address the backlog and build up in a responsible way.
I might add that I am particularly proud that we did this on a bipartisan basis, and we have done that over the last 4 years while recognizing the gentleman's concerns in this area and responding in a positive way to the increases that have been requested.
Cutting the funding for NIH buildings and facilities exacerbates the backlog of repairs. It affects their intramural research projects if the laboratory and the facilities are in disrepair.
More importantly, as I said just a few moments ago, the amendment demonstrates that overall funding in this bill is grossly insufficient. I know that there are some who want to cut it even further, so we begin to deal with robbing Peter to pay Paul here.
Nonetheless, we need to properly fund the Strategic National Stockpile. That is in our national interest and the interest of the National Institutes of Health.
However, it is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are always telling me that we have hard choices to make and that we do have to make choices--and we do--but we should not be forced to choose between research facilities and emergency preparedness.
Nevertheless, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that we should starve the bill and then, for the issues that may be critically important, take money from another critically important bill or program.
Let us fund this bill where it should be to meet the needs of the National Strategic Stockpile as well as allowing the NIH to be able to have laboratories and buildings in good repair so that our scientists can perform in an environment that allows them to be more creative, more innovative, and do more about the discovery to cure.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, this amendment would direct $15 million from the Strategic National Stockpile to allow States to build or maintain their own medical stockpile.
The 2023 appropriation bill authorized a demonstration program for State Strategic National Stockpiles but did not include funding. This amendment would reduce funding for the Federal Strategic National Stockpile to support State efforts. You have one amendment that wants to go to $100 million, one who wants to take $15 million away from the national stockpile.
It is important to note that the authorization specifically stated that authorized funds were intended to supplement rather than supplant the maintenance and use of the Federal Strategic National Stockpile. Redirecting SNS funds as this amendment does is in conflict with the intended purpose of the law. We are not adding on to, we are taking away from and moving someplace else.
I would suggest that with regard to our public health and our national security, that through these efforts what we should do is to focus in on dealing with public health infrastructure in the strongest possible way, and that means making the investments in data modernization and data collection.
There ought to be the authority to report data that the CDC should have to get this information, so we know what is happening in real time. We ought to take a look at the State laboratories and look at how we are supporting State laboratories, which many crashed, the whole infrastructure during COVID, the public health infrastructure nearly crashed.
This amendment is in conflict with the intended purpose of the law. Once again, it takes money rather than adding to. It is intended to supplement, but what it does is it supplants.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I stand in continued opposition to the amendment. It is hard to fathom the logic of supplanting versus supplementing. If you are taking money from the stockpile, you are taking away the funds
that are there, but you are not adding funds to what they already have so, in fact, you are taking money from the SNS for this other effort which is contrary to what the law states.
I agree different States have different needs, et cetera. That is why I think that what you ought to do is to buttress what we are doing in State laboratories, dealing with data modernization, to make our public health infrastructure as strong as possible. This really takes money away from the SNS.
Mr. Chair, I oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment would cut $28 million from the Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose of eliminating the Minority HIV/AIDS Prevention Initiative.
How far my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come from the vision of George Bush and his PEPFAR Initiative. The underlying bill already cuts funding for the Minority HIV/AIDS Prevention Initiative by more than 50 percent. We have cut it already in this bill by 50 percent from its current funding level of $60 million to a proposed funding level of only $28 million. That is unacceptable.
In the explanatory materials the Republican majority posted online to accompany the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill, the majority acknowledges ``the critical role that the Minority AIDS Initiative plays in our longstanding efforts to eliminate HIV and address the disproportionate disease burden that racial minority communities face.'' That is in the explanatory materials, and that is true.
The minority HIV/AIDS prevention initiative supports HIV prevention, as well as treatment in minority communities to help address that disparity.
While we have made significant advances in recent decades against the HIV epidemic, it continues to be a crisis in many racial and ethnic minority communities. Almost three out of four new HIV diagnoses are among racial and ethnic minorities.
This amendment to eliminate funding for the minority HIV/AIDS prevention initiative would take us back to a time when the Federal Government turned a blind eye to the spread of HIV, especially in minority communities.
Let me be clear: Not only is this amendment unacceptable, but the funding cut of more than 50 percent in the base bill is unacceptable. When we go to conference with the Senate, after this House bill goes up in flames, I will ensure that these disastrous funding cuts are not included in the final bill.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment. I also might add, if you take the base bill which my Republican colleagues have come forward with, which is really unacceptable, the base bill ends the HIV initiative. These are programs that have been eliminated. It eliminates the HIV initiative here.
This amendment would further cut the opportunity for treating AIDS in the minority community. What is going on here that we are not moving toward ending the HIV epidemic? We are close to it, which is why we dealt with this initiative on a bipartisan basis over the last 4 years.
This, once again, is my colleagues turning their backs on saving people's lives. What more important effort should we be involved in in this Congress?
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
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.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 62 Offered by Ms. Boebert
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee.
