MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Rosa L. DeLauro

Democrat CT 6 statements translated

Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, focuses her recent floor work on appropriations: she opposes Republican funding bills over cuts to global health and humanitarian programs, over a DHS funding provision she says would let the Secretary transfer billions to the Border Patrol, and over a White House budget policy she says would shift control of federal funding to political appointees; she also supports measures she helped shape, such as the December funding extension and a bill naming the West Haven VA medical center after Medal of Honor recipient Bud Bucha. She argues in detail, often listing specific provisions, dollar figures, and past agreements, though she also spends substantial time criticizing Republican leadership and President Trump rather than the measure under consideration, and sometimes answers a question other than the one posed—for example, framing a debate over a continuing resolution around how long Republicans took to accept a fix. Notably, she frequently uses passives and euphemisms that leave responsibility unnamed, speaking of “an error that was made” or “the error that was placed in that bill” without saying who made or placed it, which obscures who did what far more than most members. She follows her party’s messaging closely and directs her criticism at the opposing party rather than at individual members personally.Written by AI from their statements. Updated 2026-10-17.

Average grade

B+

82 / 100 over 6 statements

Signal 78 / 100

Relevance 76 / 100

Reasoning 98 / 100

Respect Not scored yet

Clarity 96 / 100

Averaged over the 6 of 6 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Wording that hides who did something, or who will.7.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×7.8

“As I said, we viewed that there was an error that was made because it would allow Homeland Security Secretary Mullin to transfer billions of dollars to the Border Patrol, the same agency responsible for harassing and killing American citizens.” Jul 21

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.2.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.5

Statements 6

House of Representatives · 2026-09-01

Agoa Extension Act

“I support this temporary funding bill and urge everyone to vote for it. It improves on earlier Republican plans, passed the Senate with support from both parties, and stops the White House from taking spending power from Congress. It also gives us time to finish the full-year funding bills.”

“I support this bill to keep the government open through December 11. It fixes problems from an earlier plan. It stops cuts to fighting wildfires and protecting elections. It blocks money from going to the Border Patrol and denies funding for expensive vanity projects. It also stops the White House from letting political appointees control federal spending. We must pass this bill to keep the government funded while we work on full-year budgets.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure we are considering today, which would extend government funding through December 11. This bill, which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-6, is a marked improvement on the measure House Republicans forced to the floor before the district work period. We had three main objectives to that piece of legislation. It did not address a proposed rule from the White House Budget Office that granted unprecedented authority over Federal spending to political appointees in the Trump administration. It did not include spending adjustments known as anomalies that prevent interruptions or reductions of certain services during a temporary funding extension. It created a loophole that would have allowed certain funds within the Department of Homeland Security to be diverted to the Border Patrol in violation of the bipartisan agreement struck earlier this year. I am pleased that the measure that we are considering today corrects these issues with the House Republican legislation. It prevents cuts to wildfire suppression, election security, economic development, and infrastructure investments. It supports the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, allows the FBI to continue planning for the 2028 Olympics, facilitates preparations for the 2030 census, extends the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Whistleblower Program, supports the launch schedule for NOAA’s weather satellites, and much more. The bill contains no funding for ICE and prevents the Department of Homeland Security from using any money in this bill for the Border Patrol. The Trump administration has provided tens of billions of dollars in advance funding for these agencies already. We will not support a single cent in further funding without substantial reforms to protect our communities from abuse. Additionally, the bill denies the administration’s request for vanity projects, like the $1 billion Trump-class battleships. These are all welcome provisions. This measure also freezes a White House budget policy that would put President Trump’s political appointees in charge of virtually all of Federal funding. This is an important first step, but more must be done to permanently block this policy before it is allowed to take effect. Federal funding must be awarded as Congress intended based upon genuine need and objective merit. Funding for cancer research should not be blocked because of partisan politics. Whether a community receives disaster relief should not depend on who they voted for in the last election. Recently, the Department of Energy admitted in court that they had canceled certain grants solely because they were awarded to communities represented by Democrats. If this proposed policy is allowed to come to fruition, this kind of political weaponization will become the norm. It is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent, one which will harm all of our constituents in the long run. I know there is bipartisan opposition to this policy, but I am optimistic that we can work together to prevent it from taking effect, to protect Congress’ constitutional prerogative over Federal spending, and protect our communities from being starved of sorely needed Federal resources. To be clear, the continuing resolution we are considering today is in no way a substitute for the full-year funding process. It is merely a means to complete this important work while averting a lapse in government funding. I remain committed to negotiating bipartisan agreements for all 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2027 before the conclusion of this continuing resolution. I believe Chairman Cole, Vice Chair Murray, and Chair Collins share this commitment. There can be no replacement for the appropriations process, not continuing resolutions, not reconciliation, not empowerments, nor pocket rescissions. The power of the purse resides in the Congress. It is our exclusive responsibility. We do a disservice to this institution and the American people when we forfeit our authority over Federal spending to the executive branch. The first step in exercising that authority is passing this bill today. The next step is enacting full-year bills that protect our constituents’ interests and make sure that Federal investments are delivered to the American people without the interference of unelected political appointees in the White House, at the Office of Management and Budget, or throughout the Trump administration. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation while we continue the difficult but necessary work of crafting full-year funding bills that rein in this reckless administration, reassert Congress’ power of the purse, and provide relief to the American people struggling with the high cost of living. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

Speech on a bill

Reasoning 100 of 100

This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis

House of Representatives · 2026-07-21

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027

“I am voting against this temporary funding bill. It has a drafting error that lets billions of dollars go to the Border Patrol, which breaks our earlier agreement. Republicans rushed this bill without negotiating, and they refuse to fix the mistake. We should work together to fund the government the right way.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I might add, with all this concern about the folks who were out of work, who were waiting in long lines, about our folks in the Coast Guard and others, it was my proposal that said: Let’s fund those agencies. Since there is difficulty about ICE and about Border Patrol, let’s fund the agencies and move forward. It took Republicans 79 days to decide that that was the good fix, and, therefore, we could pay those people. They kept them dangling in the wind for those 79 days, all because they would like to continue to fund rogue agencies that are lawless, that are putting at risk people in our communities--and more than at risk with, most recently, two people killed, one in Maine and one in Texas. The Homeland bill passed--I am going to mention it again--unopposed in April, a voice vote, because it included the provision to remove all funding for the Border Patrol. This continuing resolution doesn’t continue that agreement. As I said, we viewed that there was an error that was made because it would allow Homeland Security Secretary Mullin to transfer billions of dollars to the Border Patrol, the same agency responsible for harassing and killing American citizens. Again, what we tried to do was to reach out to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in good faith. We crafted the language, informed them of the error, and shared the language to fix it. They have refused to do so and continue to refuse to do so. One has to ask the question: Why? Who wants to shut down a government? I certainly don’t. Democrats do not want a government shutdown. If I had my way, we would be able to fund the government on a bipartisan basis through the appropriations process, one bill at a time. Unfortunately, it seems increasingly likely that, at some point, a continuing resolution will be necessary. That does not mean we must rush through an incomplete, hastily constructed, one-sided stopgap measure that fails to adequately meet the government’s funding needs. Agencies only came up with their needs yesterday afternoon, over 50 of these needs. I admonish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Read it carefully because something that may affect your community and something you care deeply about, and seeing that agency move forward during a period of a continuing resolution, may be in here, but not on what you will vote on this afternoon. I am disappointed that the apparent error in this measure--which, again, allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to transfer billions of dollars, in direct contravention of the agreement--has not been corrected. I would much rather be standing before you to tout a bipartisan agreement that, in fact, moves us forward through the appropriations process on a bipartisan basis. It is a partisan path that my colleagues have taken us on here, without all the information necessary to draft an adequate funding extension and without consulting anyone else on their proposal. This is a go-it-alone approach. You know what? That is not a way to govern. We know that, especially those of us who sit on the Committee on Appropriations. It is not a go-it-alone approach. My colleagues have to engage. They have to be involved in a negotiation, which is what we were involved in in April, and we came to a conclusion. That is what we should be doing now: engaging in a negotiation, coming to a conclusion, and fixing what is an error in the drafting of the language of the continuing resolution. Don’t hold us up and pass a bill that doesn’t meet the needs of the American people. I strongly urge my colleagues to take the time. Let’s get it right the first time. Let’s come to the table. Let’s negotiate an agreement we can all support. Let’s work together to fully fund the government for fiscal year 2027. That is what we can do. There isn’t any question in my mind that we can do that. All of these obstacles that you want to put forward with arguments about who wants to shut the government down, let’s get real: Fix the error that was made. Fix the error that was placed in that bill. We said no money for Border Patrol unless there would be the protections. There is an open door to Border Patrol, and there are no protections. I believe the American people have sent us here to do the work on their behalf, to make sure that we address the issues that we care about. We can do that, and it wouldn’t take very long. I don’t know what the reluctance is to fix the error that would be made and set us on a path to be able to pass bipartisan bills and a continuing resolution that we can all support. It is what I am committed to doing. Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``no’’ vote on this legislation in its current form. I yield back the balance of my time.”

Speech on a bill

Reasoning 100 of 100

This statement drew 5 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis

“I oppose this temporary funding bill. Republicans wrote it without working with Democrats and rushed it to the floor. It lets the government send billions of dollars to the Border Patrol without requiring needed reforms like body cameras and search warrants. It also leaves out important help for fighting wildfires, public housing, and rural utility bills.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for those of you who may not know and have not been following this process closely, I would like to bring you up to speed on how we came to consider this piece of legislation before us today. On Friday afternoon, after everyone had gone home for the weekend, Republicans released a bill to extend government funding from September 30 through December 4. Republicans introduced the measure with no bipartisan negotiation, little advanced notice, and without any information from the government agencies as to what funding they will actually require to continue their operations for the duration of the bill. The final Homeland Security bill that passed unopposed in April was bipartisan, and it was by a voice vote. And it was in that direction because it included a provision to remove all of the funding for the Border Patrol. Chair Cole’s bill does not continue that agreement. That prohibition is removed by this continuing resolution, which would allow Homeland Security Secretary Mullin to transfer billions of dollars to the Border Patrol. We assumed that the removal of this language was a mistake--no harm, no foul--so before the bill was introduced, we reached out to our colleagues across the aisle, informed them of the error, and shared language to fix it. Yet, they refused to do so. Instead, they chose to introduce a bill that would allow Secretary Mullin to transfer billions more taxpayer dollars to the Border Patrol without implementing any of the protections that Democrats have sought since the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good earlier this year, a clear line in the sand that Democrats have drawn for months. The American people support these protections, protections like mandating the use of body-worn cameras, not just taking the money for them and then refusing to turn them on; prohibiting operations at sensitive locations like schools, hospitals, and houses of worship; requiring agents to get a warrant from a judge before kicking in someone’s door; allowing independent investigations into misconduct; ending racial profiling; and taking off the masks. The need for these protections is as urgent as ever. In recent weeks, immigration agents have shot and killed residents in Maine and in Texas, neither of whom were targets of enforcement operations. We cannot in good conscience allow billions of dollars to flow to these agencies without major reforms to keep our constituents safe from further violence. I want to say clearly and plainly that Democrats do not want a government shutdown. There would be no need for one. There are still 2 months before the funding deadline. There is no need to rush through an incomplete extension. We ought to take the time to gather the information we need to get it right the first time. I might add that yesterday afternoon we received a list of the programs that have been compiled by the Federal agencies detailing the additional provisions the agencies believe are necessary to sustain their operations through December 4. Mr. Speaker, we received this late yesterday afternoon. There are over 50 programs listed by the agencies to take some action so they can be protected during a continuing resolution, and many of these provisions are not included in the bill that we are considering today. I asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look through the list. There may be something in your community, in your district, that is very important to you, and it is not in this bill which you are going to potentially vote for today. Among these efforts, there are changes to support wildfire suppression operations. They provide public housing agencies with funding to maintain housing assistance for tens of thousands of households, and they continue programs that provide utility assistance for rural communities. If you ask people today what are the highest costs they are paying for today in an affordability crisis, it is the cost of utilities. That assistance is not in this bill. It is no surprise that the measure that we are considering failed to include these provisions. After all, the bill was introduced 3 days before we had this information, but that is the problem. Rushing this bill to the floor haphazardly without carefully considering the various needs that must be met is no way to govern, and it is irresponsible. This resolution was dropped on us on Friday afternoon without any bipartisan negotiation. Had we been consulted, there are several provisions we would have pushed for to strengthen the measure and to protect congressional prerogatives, including the reversal of a proposed Federal rule from the Office of Management and Budget that allows political appointees--political appointees in the Trump administration to unilaterally block or terminate grant funding if they deemed it not sufficiently in line with the President’s policy priorities. If we had taken the time to negotiate this measure, we could be here touting a bipartisan agreement with a plan to fully fund the government for the next fiscal year before the end of this Congress. Instead, we are scrambling--scrambling to jam through a one-sided, stopgap measure 2 days before everyone leaves for the August recess. At minimum, I cannot support this bill without the inclusion of the technical language regarding the Border Patrol that was agreed upon in April. Beyond that, the decision to pursue this path without any bipartisan negotiations gives me serious reservations moving forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

Speech on a bill

Reasoning 100 of 100

This statement drew 5 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis

House of Representatives · 2026-07-15

National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027

“I oppose this bill. It cuts funding for global health, women's health care, and foreign aid, which makes us less safe and hurts our influence in the world. It also includes an unrelated measure that makes it harder for Americans to vote.”

“Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Frankel for her leadership and work on this bill. I also extend my appreciation to Chairman Diaz-Balart and Chairman Cole for their partnership. I also thank the subcommittee staff: Erin Kolodjeski, Ed Etzkorn, and Laurie Mignone on the minority side, and their counterparts on the majority: Susan Adams, Craig Higgins, Jamie McCormick, Trey Hicks, John Muscolini, Gabriella Zach, Erin McMenamin, and Clelia Alvarado. I thank them all for their work. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. It undercuts humanitarian assistance, undermines global health programs, threatens women’s health, and breaks promises to our partners and our allies, while surrendering influence to our adversaries. After failing to bring this bill to the floor for several weeks, Republican leadership has decided to attach an entirely unrelated measure that would restrict voting access for American citizens. President Trump has insisted on this measure, despite opposition from members of his own party. He is afraid the American people will voice their vehement disapproval of Republican-led government and the failed policies of this administration at the ballot box in November. The President’s war with Iran has been a catastrophic failure. It has cost Americans more than $130 billion in higher prices so far. President Trump began this war with no plan, no strategy, no objective, no goal, and no understanding of the consequences. Nearly 6 months into the war, and the Iranian regime is still in place. The Iranian people are not free. Their ballistic missile program is intact. Their nuclear ambitions are unchanged. Their proxies are emboldened, and gas prices are rising. Their leverage is greater than it has been before, and President Trump has not articulated any course of action to bring this conflict to a close that is even remotely intelligible. The Trump Doctrine is failure followed by failure, chaos abroad, and high costs at home. The bill that we are considering today will only set us up for more failures in the future. This bill cuts funding for global health programs, particularly in the areas of reproductive health and global health security, making us more vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks that originate abroad. We are seeing the consequences of this administration’s decisions to dismantle the USAID, withdraw from the World Health Organization, and decimate our global health systems in real time, as the current Ebola outbreak in Africa threatens to become the deadliest in history. Because it took so long to detect and due to the challenging conditions, we will likely be working to contain this outbreak for more than a year. Aid workers are working in active combat zones, putting their own lives at risk from both infection and violence to stop this disease from reaching our shores. Here we are debating a bill that would further choke off resources they desperately need to keep all of us safe. Let us not forget the Trump administration’s choice to dismantle USAID is a moral tragedy. More than 500,000 children have died as a result of these cuts. It is unconscionable. This bill does not provide any funding for the U.N. regular budget, abandoning one of the longest standing institutions devoted to global peace. Undermining the U.N. only erodes our influence. It also shortchanges American businesses who receive upwards of $2 billion in U.N. contracts both here in the United States and overseas, which is more than our dues. The bill threatens women’s health around the globe, blocking any funds from going to the U.N. Population Fund, which is dedicated to reducing maternal mortality and violence against women and extending family planning to women and girls everywhere. This includes work to eliminate obstetric fistula, a traumatic childbirth injury that leads to incontinence, infections, kidney disease, and infertility. By failing to provide any funding for UNFPA, the conditions under which millions of women around the world live will only become worse. Approximately 260,000 women around the world died during or shortly following pregnancy in 2023. That is 700 maternal deaths every day, one maternal death every 2 minutes. Eliminating this funding is a moral failure. This bill also eliminates funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation. Each of these programs strengthen our influence abroad, helping to cultivate relationships with the next generation of global leaders, and prevents crises before they arise. This bill surrenders American influence to our adversaries. For every step backward we take, they take a step forward. Continually defunding the institutions that support America’s international presence will have serious, lasting consequences. In less than 2 years, the Trump administration has squandered decades of American influence, undermining our ability to persuade other countries to support our values and interests without resorting to the use of force. This bill reduces our ability to reclaim any of that influence for years to come. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill.”

Speech on a bill

Reasoning 100 of 100

This statement drew 7 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis

House of Representatives · 2026-07-15

Captain Paul W. "Bud" Bucha VA Medical Center

“I want Congress to pass this bill to rename the VA medical center in West Haven, Connecticut, after Captain Paul Bucha. He was a Medal of Honor recipient from Connecticut who spent his life serving our country and helping other veterans.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am honored and grateful for this opportunity to put forward this legislation. It is legislation that honors a man who embodied the highest ideals of service to his country, his fellow soldiers, and his community, Captain Paul W. ``Bud’’ Bucha, a longtime resident of Ridgefield, Connecticut, and a Medal of Honor recipient. The bill would rename the West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center in West Haven, Connecticut, where Captain Bucha received care for PTSD after his service and neurological care for Alzheimer’s disease before he passed away on July 31, 2024. Captain Bucha received the Medal of Honor in 1970 for his heroic service while on Active Duty during the Vietnam war. He distinguished himself with extraordinary heroism while leading 89 men on a reconnaissance mission in Vietnam under heavy enemy fire from about 1,500 soldiers. He fearlessly directed our defenses, personally destroyed a machine-gun bunker, and sustained a shrapnel wound. Using flashlights in complete view of enemy snipers, Captain Bucha also directed the medical evacuation of three air ambulance loads of seriously wounded personnel. The captain’s dedication to serving others continued after his time in uniform. He served as president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society from 1995 to 1999. He advised President Obama on foreign policy during his 2008 Presidential campaign. He served on the board of directors of Homes For Our Troops, a veteran service organization that builds and donates specially adapted custom homes for severely injured 9/11 veterans. He also served as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Veterans’ Employment, Training and Employer Outreach Services at the United States Department of Labor. Even after his death, Captain Bucha’s selflessness lives on. His brain was donated to the Center for Human Brain Discovery at Yale University for research. Naming the West Haven VA Medical Center in his honor is a deserving tribute to a hero who fought for this country. He earned this highest military distinction and then continued to fight for veterans throughout his life. His legacy, a legacy of courage and compassion, will live on through the care provided to each and every veteran who walks through its doors. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to propose this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. I hope that we can move it quickly, with the Senate, and bring it to the President for signature.”