Republicans Push Through First Six Funding Allocations, Cut Domestic Programs in Anticipation of Defense Increase

WASHINGTON – Today, Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee voted along party lines to approve the first six subcommittee funding allocations which include steep cuts to domestic programs in anticipation of a substantial increase in defense spending. House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03) delivered the following remarks ahead of the vote:

Thank you Chairman Cole.

Recently, President Trump said that he had instructed the White House budget director, Russ Vought, to quote – I’m quoting, I don’t make this up. God help me, I couldn’t make it up. “Don’t send any money for day care.” 

The President went on to say, quote “We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care,” before adding, quote, “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare,” programs which he later referred to as, quote, “little scams.”

In case anyone may have forgotten, the President previously said during an interview on Fox News that, “Medicare, Medicaid – none of that stuff is going to be touched.” That was before his One Big Beautiful Bill cut more than $900 billion to Medicaid.

I understand the unprecedented political moment we are in. But we cannot lose sight of the simple truth that the President of the United States wants to spend more taxpayer dollars on open-ended, costly foreign wars while making drastic cuts to domestic programs that provide food, education, and medicine to the American people.

The President said the quiet part out loud. The policy priorities he articulated in those comments are laid down in the funding allocations we are considering today.

The Agriculture allocation cuts non-defense spending by $1.1 billion. In Commerce, Justice, and Science, they cut $1.9 billion from non-defense funding, while increasing defense spending under that subcommittee by $600 million. Financial Services, a $600 million cut to non-defense funding. State and Foreign Operations, a $2.7 billion cut.

We have only received six of the twelve allocations. That is a problem in and of itself. But across the six allocations we have so far, non-defense spending, the cut is $2 billion, and increase defense spending by $100 million. And the agencies that deal with that. And that is before we even get to the Pentagon budget, $1.5 trillion, which public reporting and the President’s own comments make clear that this is an astronomical increase.

I do not believe that childcare, Medicare and Medicaid are, quote, “little scams.” And I do not believe we must spend so much money on foreign wars that we have to cut public services for Americans here at home to pay for them. I encourage my colleagues to reject these proposed allocations.

I also want to express my strong opposition to considering allocations for only six bills, which represent less than a quarter of total discretionary funding. And I take the goodwill of the chair saying we’ll know something in early May. But the purpose of our committee is to have one body that examines all potential tradeoffs. We cannot make those determinations if we do not know the allocations for all twelve bills.

For example, we do not know the total allocation yet for the Labor-HHS bill. Last year, the Republican majority proposed to cut the Labor-HHS bill by $24 billion. And this year, the CBO is predicting a $17 billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program – the signature federal program that helps students attend college who otherwise could not afford to. How is this Republican majority planning to address this shortfall? 

If we do not yet have a total topline, how do we propose an amount to allocate for any one bill? We cannot make informed choices, informed decisions, if we only have half of the information necessary to vote on subcommittee allocations.

It is the way we have tried to proceed in the past, and it is the way we need to try to proceed in the future. We cannot pit one subcommittee against another. We cannot provide substantial amounts in one area, thereby shortchanging other critically important areas that make a difference in the lives of the people that we represent, and help to create the opportunity for their success and their future, for themselves and their families. 

So Mr. Chairman I say to you, with all the goodwill in my heart, to propose and to move forward, I cannot vote for these allocations. I will encourage my colleagues to vote no. I thank you and I yield back. 

###