[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2506-H2515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2028, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2029, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016; AND PROVIDING FOR
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 4, 2015, THROUGH MAY 11, 2015
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 223 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 223
Resolved, That (a) at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
any bill specified in section 2 of this resolution. The first
reading of each such bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of each such bill are waived.
General debate on each such bill shall be confined to that
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate each such
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. Points of order against provisions in each such bill
for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
(b) During consideration of each such bill for amendment--
(1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in
paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in
paragraph (2);
(2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate; and
(3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read.
[[Page H2507]]
(c) When the committee rises and reports any such bill back
to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on that bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The bills referred to in the first section of this
resolution are as follows:
(a) The bill (H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy
and water development and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
(b) The bill (H.R. 2029) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and
for other purposes.
Sec. 3. During consideration of H.R. 2028 and H.R. 2029
pursuant to this resolution--
(a) the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 27, as
adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the
House as though Congress has adopted such concurrent
resolution; and
(b) the allocations printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered for
all purposes in the House to be allocations under section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from May
4, 2015, through May 11, 2015--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
{time} 1245
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. If Members were listening to the Reading Clerk read this
rule, we got into some housekeeping issues at the end. We have got a
district workweek coming up next week. We needed to give the Speaker
some authorities to continue to conduct the business of the House in a
collaborative and a pro forma way. But it was the first part of that
rule that is exciting.
I confess, I was talking to the Parliamentarian the other day, and he
was telling me about the way the history of the rules had evolved, as
folks stand on the House floor during Committee on Rules debate and
actually go through line by line explaining to the House what is in the
rule. It is not every day that I am excited about doing that, Mr.
Speaker.
The Committee on Rules has a tough job. Sometimes the Committee on
Rules' job is saying no. Sometimes the Committee on Rules' job is being
that gatekeeper to the floor of the House, and we have to deliver some
bad news to folks. I don't particularly enjoy reiterating that bad news
on the floor of the House.
But today is good news. Today it is all good news for every Member of
the House who has any ideas at all about how better to fund the
responsibilities of this Nation. They are going to be able to have
their voice heard.
Let me read, as the Reading Clerk did. We have two bills in this
rule, Mr. Speaker: H.R. 2028 and H.R. 2029. I have them here. H.R. 2029
makes appropriations for military construction, Veterans Affairs, and
related agencies. I daresay there is not a single Member on the floor
of this House that has not grappled with how to better serve the
veterans at home in our districts, that has not grappled with how to
provide better accountability to the Veterans Administration that is
tasked with providing those services. This rule provides that any
Member of this Chamber--Republican or Democrat, senior or junior,
freshman or retiring--has an opportunity to have their ideas heard. It
is the best of what we do in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and we are
going to do it on H.R. 2029.
This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2028. That is the
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill,
Mr. Speaker. Again, I daresay that there is anyone, particularly east
of the Mississippi, that has a district that is not in some way
impacted by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers is
funded in this legislation. Individual projects are funded in this
legislation.
What this rule provides is that any Member of this Chamber that has
an idea about how to better appropriate these dollars--these dollars
that belong not to us as individual Members, but to the American
taxpayer--how to better be accountable, be effective, be efficient with
these tax dollars, Mr. Speaker, they can come to this floor and have
their amendments heard.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard it said often that the Senate only has
two rules: the unanimous consent and exhaustion. The Committee on Rules
prevents us from having to have that structure here, but it is true
that you can effectively filibuster in this Chamber as well: you can
come down; you can move to strike the last word; you can have debate go
on forever. I don't believe that serves us particularly well.
There is obviously an opportunity and a need to have your voice
heard, to have your constituents' voices heard; but what this rule does
do, which is why we are going to call it a modified open rule instead
of a completely open rule, is it restricts what one might call dilatory
amendments, what one might call clarifying conversation. It restricts
these pro forma amendments, where you are not actually trying to change
any language, you just want to come down here and talk, 10 on each side
controlled by the subcommittee chairmen.
Mr. Speaker, what is so neat about these two bills that we are going
to make in order under this bill is they both passed out of the
Committee on Appropriations on a voice vote. As you know, Mr. Speaker,
there are some contentious things that we do in this institution and,
arguably, appropriating is one of the hardest things that this
institution has to do, but passing these bills out of committee on a
voice vote tells us about the collaborative way in which these bills
were put together.
Now, I can tell you, there are going to be folks on both sides of the
aisle, Mr. Speaker, who disagree with the funding levels in these
bills. There are going to be Republicans who wish that they funded
less, Democrats who wish they funded more; there are going to be
Democrats who wish they funded less, and Republicans who wish they
funded more.
The funding levels of the total bill, that is not for debate today.
That is set in the funding allocations. We call them 302(a)
allocations, Mr. Speaker. That is my responsibility on the Committee on
the Budget and others who serve on the Committee on the Budget. As you
know, Mr. Speaker, we are this close--oh, golly, we are this close--to
having conferenced the first balanced budget for the United States of
America in over 10 years--in over 10 years. The House and the Senate
are about to agree on funding levels for this Nation. It is
embarrassing that we don't do it every year, but it is wonderful that
we have an opportunity to do it this year, and we will.
Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, we would have done that first. And candidly,
as a member of the House Committee on the Budget, a Member who proudly
supported the budget that passed here on the floor of the House, I
thought that conference report was going to be ready on Monday of this
week. It is not. It is not. So this rule also deems those levels that
the House has already passed, those levels that we absolutely expect to
be the levels of funding in that conference report, to be the levels of
funding for this Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill, for this Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, as is appropriate.
We are beginning the appropriations process today, Mr. Speaker, at
the earliest point in 40 years. How many of my colleagues are
frustrated, disappointed,
[[Page H2508]]
disillusioned when this Chamber cannot get its work done?
Oh, the list is long, Mr. Speaker, and there are legitimate reasons
why we cannot accomplish some of the goals that we have set out to
accomplish, but I promise you, Mr. Speaker, the funding clock waits on
no Member. Come September 30 of this year, funding will expire for the
entire Federal Government. The earlier we start to solve that issue,
the better chance we have of getting it done. And working together,
collaboratively, voice votes out of subcommittee, big votes out on the
budget bill, we are starting earlier than we have since 1973.
Good processes yield good results, Mr. Speaker; flawed processes
yield flawed results. This is the kind of rule that I think every
Member of this body wishes we could see more of here on the House
floor. This is going to allow for the kind of debate that is not going
to predetermine the outcome, but is going to allow Members to come down
to the floor and make their case to their colleagues, have the kind of
debate the American people expect, and let the chips fall where they
may. You get 218 votes, you get to change this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I signed up to be on the Committee on Rules because I
knew that we would have the opportunity to unleash this institution,
the opportunity to allow every Member who comes from such diverse
backgrounds, who have so much to contribute. Mr. Speaker, I just got
here 4 years ago with my voting card lent to me by the Seventh District
of Georgia. Folks in my class that came in 4 years ago, they are
already in the top 50 percent of seniority in this institution. The
American people have been turning folks out at record speed, which
means we have been bringing in new talent like never before.
Sometimes folks think the system around here is geared towards those
who have been here the longest. They think that only after you have
achieved a subcommittee chairmanship or a committee chairmanship will
you be able to have input on the process. The Committee on Rules says
no. The Committee on Appropriations says no. On these bills in this
process, every single Member has a chance to have their voice heard, a
chance to come down here, make their case, and have an impact on the
final product.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be carrying this rule today, and I urge
strong support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we
consider this bill throughout the afternoon and on final passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my
good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, totally unrelated to my assigned task, I do feel very
strongly, as I am sure many Members of the House of Representatives and
many American citizens feel, the horror of what transpired in Nepal,
and I would just like to say, probably speaking for just about every
Member, that our heartfelt condolences are with the Nepalese people,
and our hope is that the world will rally to them, as have many,
including America, and allow the injured and the homeless to be taken
care of.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2029, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016 provides
for a total of $76.6 billion in discretionary funding, including
overseas contingency operations, as well as $7 billion for military
construction and family housing projects, and $163.2 billion for the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016, provides a total allocation of
$35.4 billion for energy and water resource projects.
First, I find it important to mention, as did my colleague from
Georgia, that this rule is a modified open rule, with time limits set
to 10 minutes' debate per amendment, and not an open rule to allow all
Members to have a full and robust debate on the House floor.
I commend my colleague from Georgia, who has been a continuing
advocate for open rules, and I also recognize his explanation that the,
in his words, restriction of time was to avoid what would amount to
unnecessary debate.
But as has become custom under Republican leadership, we are once
again limiting the amount of deliberation permitted on issues that are
critically important to our Nation and our constituents. Nevertheless,
I am proud, as is my friend from Georgia, that Republicans and
Democrats--the word he used is ``collaborated,'' and I agree--were able
to come together to draft H.R. 2029, the legislation that appropriates
funds to military construction projects, improves the quality of life
for veterans and military families, and allows for the continued
operation of the essential functions of our Nation's governing body.
These measures include the implementation of stringent, but
effective, reporting requirements for the VistA electronic health
records system, as well as the continued efforts to eliminate the
veterans' claims backlog by fully funding endeavors to implement
digital scanning of health records and improvements to centralized
mail.
{time} 1300
These commendable provisions bring us another step closer to ensuring
that those who have dedicated themselves to defending our Nation will
receive the benefits they have rightly earned and deserve.
Despite reaching common ground on several important aspects, the
Republican's fiscal year 2016 budget caps will have real and drastic
cuts to essential programs that are necessary to support the brave
individuals who served our great Nation in combat and who will bear the
costs of those wars for decades to come.
As a result of the majority's FY 2016 budget resolution spending
caps, political maneuvering, and gimmicks--I remember when I was a
child and I first learned about the magical terminology ``hocus-
pocus,'' and it comes to mind that we are sort of in imaginary land
here, with the political maneuvering and gimmicks--military
construction funding stands to be slashed by $1.2 billion, and the
Department of Veterans Affairs comes in at $1.4 billion below the
amount requested.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, we had a lengthy proceeding, and
every member on the Rules Committee had an opportunity to speak to this
issue. Almost as a collective voice, there was criticism of Veterans
Affairs and how it functions and its failures over a protracted period
of time.
I raised a question for information about how many people work for
VA, total; and I learned for the first time that there are 340,000
people that work in interrelated capacities for VA.
The arguments that were being made were made about people who are
flawed and rightly should be criticized, but I don't feel all 340,000
people who work on behalf of veterans, particularly in areas that I am
privileged to serve, have seen changes that are positive and helpful,
although there is always room for improvement.
There was one measure for Veterans Affairs employees to receive the
same 1.3 percent increase in their pay, and this measure disallows
that, and I don't think that is right. I believe that many of those
persons have rightfully earned what other Federal employees are to
receive as a minimal increase in these very troubled economic times.
My Republican colleagues' efforts to shift $532 million to the
overseas contingency operations account--which, incidentally, does not
count against the budget cap--creates the appearance that we have
allocated the robust and necessary funding that our military requires
when, in reality, we fail to do so.
Americans who currently serve and have served in our military, along
with their families, deserve the very best our Nation has to offer.
When it comes to investments in our infrastructure, our military, and
our country, we all must recognize that not all spending is bad
spending. We can and we must do better.
H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016, is also an important piece of
legislation. This bill provides funding for many critical defense and
nondefense areas, from vital water resource projects to essential
weapons, naval reactor, and nuclear proliferation funding. All of these
funding projects enjoy largely bipartisan support.
That is why it is a shame, in my view, that my Republican friends
have
[[Page H2509]]
taken this opportunity to poison these bipartisan funding measures by
attaching partisan policy riders, and I am sure Members are going to be
down here speaking loudly about some of them.
On the one hand, this bill provides very robust funding for the Army
Corps of Engineers at $5.6 billion in total. That is an increase of
$142 million from fiscal year 2015.
I applaud this strong funding effort. Unfortunately, my friends on
the other side have elected to add an amendment to this funding that
will allow guns to be carried on all Corps of Engineers land.
I spoke passionately last night about this, and I anticipate that,
beginning in the month of May, I will speak more not just about this
particular measure, but about the epidemic of gun violence in this
society. I did not coin that phrase. The former Surgeon General, Mr.
Satcher, pointed that out a decade ago--nearly--and it is as true today
as at any other point.
Why would we add an amendment to an important appropriations bill
that will allow more guns into recreational areas used by families? I
just simply cannot understand that. Does anyone really believe an
appropriations bill is the appropriate place to amend our gun laws?
It would appear that reasonable minds do not. Clause 2 of rule XXI
prohibits members of the House Rules to legislate on an appropriations
measure. Significantly and dangerously, Republicans have granted a
waiver of this important rule.
I won't speak more about it. As I indicated, there will be more to
come on this business of guns in our society, and I will make it very
clear where I am coming from. I feel it is in the interest of society
and not in opposition to the Second Amendment.
Here is another example. This bill allocates $1.178 billion for the
harbor maintenance trust fund, vital funding needed to help further
usher our ports and harbors in the 21st century, but then my friends on
the other side of the aisle saw fit to attach an amendment that will
prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from taking commonsense steps to
clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act.
Why, in one instance, are we going to fully fund an agency as vital
as the Army Corps of Engineers and then, in the next breath, tie their
hands by preventing them from making commonsense determinations on what
is widely acknowledged to be a state of confusion about the scope of
the law's pollution control programs? Let the Corps do its job.
Why are my friends on the other side of the aisle trying to weigh
down this important funding bill with unnecessary and partisan policy
riders?
This bill funds essential nuclear proliferation activities--$1.9
million worth--as well as environmental cleanup efforts. We should not
be threatening the funding to stop the spread of nuclear weapons or the
preservation of our environment and construction of our harbors just so
the Republicans can have a partisan fight over gutting the Clean Water
Act or attempting to change our gun laws.
The American people deserve better. The funding of these projects is
too important.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have an important responsibility in budgeting in this
institution--again, one that has not been fulfilled, I would argue, in
more than a decade, that will be fulfilled this year for the very first
time.
We had a choice in the Budget Committee. I serve on the Budget
Committee as well, Mr. Speaker. We had a choice in the Budget Committee
about whether or not we were just going to pretend that we could fund
at certain levels or whether we were going to actually follow the law.
Mr. Speaker, it may not surprise you that we have those conversations
in Washington; but, yes, the conversation goes: Am I just going to do
whatever I want to do? Or am I going to follow the law?
It is very striking to me that this conversation occurs at all. I
would have said that that is kind of the definition of the law: you
don't get whatever you want to do; you have to follow the law. I wish
that we could drive that message home across so many different parts of
our society. The law is the law.
The President absolutely sent some budget requests to us for these
bills, as he will for other appropriations bills, Mr. Speaker.
In the case of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the
President requested a 5 percent increase in that funding. Now, had we
passed that 5 percent increase without changing the law, we are going
to roll around to October 1, at the beginning of the fiscal year, and
the law is going to snap that 5 percent increase right back down to
legally allowed levels.
The choice we had in the Appropriations Committee--and I so admire my
friends on the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker--we had a choice
of either pretending we were going to spend a lot of money funding all
of our priorities, only to have the law snap those down across the
board, or we could be honest about how much money was available and
make sure we were prioritizing every single dollar as best we could.
In the case of Energy and Water, the President asked for a 5 percent
increase. The Appropriations Committee provided a 3 percent increase,
as the law allows. In the case of Military Construction and the VA, the
President asked for just over an 8 percent increase. The Appropriations
Committee provided a 6 percent increase, as the law allows.
I would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle. I would
challenge my friends on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker. Thirty
years ago, two-thirds of what the Federal Government funded in this
country was funded out of this institution. It was funded through the
Appropriations Committee. It was this body making decisions and choices
based on our constituents' needs and desires about how to use taxpayer
dollars--not so today.
Today, it is exactly the opposite; instead of this institution
funding two-thirds of the budget and one-third of it being mandatory
spending, now, two-thirds is mandatory, and only one-third is available
for this body to make decisions about.
I would challenge my colleagues: let's find that agreement that
reforms mandatory spending, as every Member of this Chamber knows needs
to happen, and let's reallocate those dollars to what was designed in
the Budget Control Act of 2011 to allow us to fund these discretionary
priorities at a higher level.
Mr. Speaker, I want to build things. I want to build things. For
Pete's sake, in this Energy and Water Development bill, we do. We fund
the Corps of Engineers in this bill.
We have the Savannah Harbor expansion project in the great State of
Georgia. We are the fastest growing container port in the Nation, Mr.
Speaker--the fastest growing in the Nation--trying to prepare for the
new Panamax ships coming through the new Panama Canal.
The Corps of Engineers tells us that in order to maximize the use of
taxpayer dollars, in order to make sure that taxpayers get the best
bang for their buck on this project of national importance, we need to
build it in 6 years, at the rate of $100 million a year. Six years,
$100 million a year, is the way we maximize taxpayer dollars.
This bill funds that project at $21 million. That is $21 million. We
are going to string that project out year after year after year,
costing the taxpayer more.
Now, I don't blame my friends on the Appropriations Committee, Mr.
Speaker. As it turns out, the rules of the House don't allow us to
prioritize those projects. That is what the President asked for. The
Appropriations Committee wasn't able to ask for any more than the
President asked for.
This is the President's funding level, but that is not the right way
to appropriate, and if we could work together to reallocate those
dollars, I would do it tomorrow.
I challenge my friends to find a mandatory spending reform bill that
I will not support. It is critical that we do it. It is critical to our
seniors. It is critical to the young people. It is critical to the
governance of this Nation.
But to the degree that I have complaints about this bill, my friends
have complaints about this bill, with the passage of this rule, we are
going to
[[Page H2510]]
allow every single Member to come down here and make those improvements
known. We will have up-or-down votes. Some amendments will lose; some
amendments will win.
We will perfect this bill together. That is the way this bill was
written, and that is the way this bill will be passed, and that should
make us all very proud.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I so much enjoy the passion of my good
friend from Georgia. I am sure he feels the same as me. He kind of has
an advantage over me today, in that he is on the Budget Committee.
Happily, I would report to him I brought along some people from the
Budget Committee that can take up the slack that I might offer.
I am delighted at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), my good friend from the Budget
Committee.
{time} 1315
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend being willing to
yield.
I rise in opposition to this rule which deems, as if passed, a budget
resolution that, at best, is an economic fantasy and, at worst, does
serious damage to our country.
The rule before us today is further proof that our Republican
colleagues are continuing to rely on faith-based accounting in this
budget. They are closing their eyes and praying that it works. But it
doesn't work. The numbers don't add up, and this rule makes those
shortcomings clear.
The funding levels deemed in this measure do not meet our moral
obligation to move our country forward and help the American people.
Not only do they fail to meet the needs of the people we represent,
they fail to meet a basic standard of honest budgeting.
For example, we know that trickle-down economics doesn't work. We
have seen that time and time again, unfortunately, in this century.
Yet, this rule puts in place funding levels that are supposedly
balanced by the unsupportable belief that tax cuts generate more
revenue.
The Republican budget proposals will result in dramatic cuts to
education, infrastructure, and innovation, cuts to investments that we
know we need to prepare our children and grandchildren to lead the
world in the new global economy and to grow our economy.
This deemed budget resolution pretends we can afford more tax cuts
for the ultrawealthy who do not need them, while it increases taxes for
middle class families that they can't afford.
This rule deems in place funding levels that will continue to use the
overseas contingency operations account budget line as a slush fund,
abandoning the Republicans' own commitments to maintaining sequester-
level spending for our national defense, while cutting nearly every
program that helps hardworking Americans get ahead.
At every turn, this measure misses the mark in fulfilling our
obligation to adequately fund investments that will allow us to
continue our economic recovery. Simply put, this budget falls woefully
short.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the funding levels deemed in this rule
and ensure that American families will not be forced to work harder and
get less.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I enjoy serving on the Budget Committee with my friend from Kentucky.
The budget is that first step of any accounting process for the year,
and my friend is absolutely right.
If we could have, we would have passed that budget conference report
first thing when we got into town this week. Anybody who is reading the
newspaper knows it slowed down in the Senate. We have all the numbers
worked out. There are some other issues going on. I won't bore folks
with those details.
So this rule absolutely does, in the name of getting the people's
business done, take those budget levels that have passed in this House,
that have passed in the Senate, that are on their way back over here in
a conference report, and sets those as the funding levels for this
year.
Again, these are the levels that exist in law. That is the fantasy
part of some of our funding debates. I could agree with all my
colleagues that we need to triple funding on X, Y, or Z project, but
the law won't allow it. We will pass that on the floor of the House,
but as soon as the beginning of the fiscal year rolls around, the law
will sequester those dollars, snap that funding back down.
We have an obligation to prioritize these dollars ourselves. Golly,
when we have tough decisions to be made, I don't want to leave those
tough decisions to an automatic sequestration process. I don't want to
leave those tough decisions to some automatic process of law. I want to
take responsibility for those decisions here. I want us to make these
decisions together.
If we have to grapple with it, let us grapple together, but let's be
honest with folks that there is no free lunch here. If we want it, we
have to pay for it.
Now, to my friend from Kentucky's point, we are paying for a lot of
it out the overseas contingency operations account. I voted ``no'' on
that decision when it came to the House floor, as my friend from
Kentucky did as well. We lost.
That is the funny thing about this institution, Mr. Speaker. I told
my constituents about all the amazing things I was going to get up here
to do, I was going to do them on their behalf. It turns out, if I can't
get 217 of my colleagues up to agree with me, I can't do squat.
We tried and we failed on that account. So now we have the numbers
that we have; we have the bill that we have; we have the law that we
have; and as much as we might want it to be different, it isn't.
That is why this open rule is so important, Mr. Speaker, because we
have the bill that we have; we have the law that we have; and now we
have a process that allows every Member of this Chamber to come down
here and improve it.
We don't know what it is going to look like at the end of the
process. It is not a foregone conclusion who has the votes and who
doesn't, and I believe in my heart the bill will be better at the end
than it was at the beginning because that is what the collective wisdom
of this institution brings.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), another member
of the Budget Committee, a dear friend of mine.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, before I start, may I make a parliamentary
inquiry, sir.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary
inquiry.
Ms. MOORE. My inquiry is, has the concurrent budget passed? Is it
law?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond to a parliamentary
inquiry on a non-pending measure.
Ms. MOORE. Well, the rule, Mr. Speaker, is really clear. It says that
the provisions of the House Concurrent Resolution 27, as adopted by the
House, shall have the force and effect in the House as though Congress
has adopted such concurrent resolution. I am hearing that we have
adopted it, so have we?
In order to take up these appropriations bills, we are supposed to
have passed that. I am on the budget conference committee, and I didn't
recall that we had passed it, sir.
So I renew my inquiry as to whether or not we are operating under a
passed budget resolution that has passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may consult the records of
the House for that information.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because,
once again, here we are with all kinds of flowery notions about the law
and so forth, and we are actually deeming this budget as passed.
As a member of the Budget Conference Committee, I can tell you that
the reason for the delay is not because there was an attempt to reach a
bipartisan agreement. Oh, no. The Democratic budget conferees have been
completely shut out of the budget negotiation process.
You would think that without these pesky Democrats in the way, it
would not have been that hard for the majority-controlled House and the
Senate to
[[Page H2511]]
come up with an agreement of how best to shred the social safety net,
drive more people into poverty, cut our investments in infrastructure,
block grant Medicaid, slash SNAP, end the Affordable Care Act and then,
of course, keep the money and the savings from the Affordable Care Act,
and take 69 percent of nondefense cuts from low-income and moderate-
income families. They could have done it.
So instead of the majority party governing, they have resorted to
this plan B and deeming the budget as passed.
Now, you know, this Republican budget claims to balance in 10 years,
but it doesn't do it. It gets the savings from the Affordable Care Act,
which it eliminates. And also, to appease the war hawks in the
Republican caucus, they throw this money into the overseas contingency
operations, also known as a slush fund.
And in the underlying budget, we see the Republican Party doubling
down on the same ``cut our way into prosperity'' approach. That is
another charade claiming that block grants are just another form of
enabling States to have more flexibility. When you hear the word
``flexibility,'' think massive cuts. It means eviscerating the social
safety net.
So I ask my colleagues to reject this rule.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I know the Speaker is constrained to just ruling on parliamentary
issues. I have no such constraint here. I can opine on the budget
process itself.
And I would say to my friend that I share her frustration. I
absolutely do. I have been in this Chamber 4 years. We have had to deem
appropriations levels every single year. Not once--not once--have we
been able to agree on conference budget numbers in the 4 years that I
have served in this House.
Now, for the previous 4 years, I confess, I pointed the finger at the
Senate, and I pointed the finger at the Senate's leader who, at that
time, was Senator Reid from Nevada. Today we have a new Senate leader,
and I can't point the finger at the other party. If we can't get this
right, it is my leader in the Senate who can't get this right. But I
believe we are. Mr. Speaker, I believe we are.
Open up any newspaper, look at any report. It was supposed to be done
earlier this week. We have never had a shot at getting it done in the
past. We are on the brink of that agreement. So what is happening here
today, far from being an unusual circumstance, is the best we have done
in 5 years.
Now, candidly, that is what I expect from new leadership in the
Senate. I expect us to do better than we did last year; I expect us to
do better than we did 2 years ago; and I expect us to be even better
next year than we are this year. The first time in more than a decade,
the first time in more than a decade we have had a shot at a governing
budget document.
But to be fair, Mr. Speaker, I want to distinguish between the budget
and the law. A lot of folks believe that the budget of the United
States becomes the law of the land. It does not. The President never
signs the budget of the United States. It is an agreement between the
House and the Senate. That distinguishes it from the budget caps and
the Budget Control Act, which are absolutely the law of the land,
passed by the House and Senate, signed by President Obama.
So when we talk about what it is that we want to see in funding
levels, we can decide anything we want to in this Chamber. But the law
of the land is not what we decide in our budget document; it is what
was decided back in August of 2011 when the budget caps from the Budget
Control Act came into being.
Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to have this conference budget
agreement, the opportunity to be working from the same sheet of
budgeting music on both sides of the Hill, is amazing. I can't tell
you, as a Budget Committee member, how hard we have worked to achieve
it and how much I anticipate it. It wasn't yesterday; so far it is not
today; but it is going to be soon.
I don't want that to stand in the way of getting the people's
business done. We have two great appropriations bills here, again,
passed by voice votes out of committee, composed in collaborative ways
within the Appropriations Committee. These two bills deserve to be
heard on the floor of the House; they deserve to be heard this week;
and with passage of this rule, they will be.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Florida, the great State of Florida (Ms. Brown),
my very, very good friend who is an expert in veterans affairs, among
other things.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House: dead on
arrival. You know, you can fool some of the people some of the time,
but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I rise in strong
opposition to this rule and to the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations bill.
After taking a step forward with the new Choice Act program, this
Republican budget takes two steps back with its cuts in veterans health
care. Just another example of Republicans talking the talk but not
walking the walk.
But you don't have to take my word for it. You can ask the veterans
service organizations who represent the interests of our veterans.
Every last one of them oppose this bill.
{time} 1330
The national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said the
following about the Republicans' veterans bill: ``The VA cannot fulfill
its mission without proper funding, but the House, for whatever reason,
now wants to ration care, eliminate infrastructure projects, and stop
improving upon the programs and services that the VA was created to
provide. This bill is bad for veterans, and any vote for it is
unconscionable.''
We are going to vote on a Republican budget later this week that
provides more money for the Department of Defense than the Pentagon
requested, while cutting funds for health care and services for every
veteran that is returning from battle.
George Washington, the first President of the United States, said:
``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in
any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how
they perceive veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by
our Nation.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Sadly, this bill truly fails the test of
appreciation our veterans deserve.
Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the Veterans Affairs
Appropriations bill, and send this bad legislation back to the drawing
board.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will cut 70,000 veterans from health care. I
can't imagine any Democrat or any Republican voting for this bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
One of the things I love about this institution is the passion with
which folks come to the floor of this House, and so often that passion
is directed at improving the services for those who have served us.
My friend from Florida is absolutely right when he said in his
opening statement that in the Rules Committee last night, the
frustration with the VA and in trying to provide accountable services
to our veterans was universal. This is not a partisan issue. Serving
those who have served us is an issue that comes from the heart, and it
comes from every Member of this Chamber.
But I will remind all of my friends, if you are wondering whether or
not we are fulfilling that commitment, this is the bill that this
institution passed last year with only one dissenting vote. And this
bill increases funding over last year by 6 percent.
Mr. Speaker, let no man and no woman question the commitment of our
friends on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, our friends doing the
Military Construction and VA Appropriations bill. I know the commitment
to be universal, which is why in a time of budget cuts, which is why in
a time of sequestration, which is why in a time when almost every
account of the Federal budget is under strain, this account goes not
down but up, and up by 6 percent over what this body passed almost
unanimously last year.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time remains for
both sides.
[[Page H2512]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Georgia that
I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am also prepared to close.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I wish to place the Statement of Administration Policy, with
reference to both these matters, in the Record.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 2029--Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
(Rep. Rogers, R-KY, Apr. 28, 2015)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
2029, making appropriations for military construction, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other
purposes. The bill fails to fully fund critical priorities,
including veterans' medical care and military and VA
construction. Furthermore, the legislation includes a highly
problematic ideological rider that would constrain the
President's ability to protect our national security. If the
President were presented with H.R. 2029, his senior advisors
would recommend that he veto the bill.
Moreover, enacting H.R. 2029 while adhering to the
congressional Republican budget's overall spending limits for
fiscal year (FY) 2016 would hurt our economy and shortchange
investments in middle-class priorities. Sequestration was
never intended to take effect: rather, it was supposed to
threaten such drastic cuts to both defense and non-defense
funding that policymakers would be motivated to come to the
table and reduce the deficit through smart, balanced reforms.
The Republican framework would bring base discretionary
funding for both defense and non-defense for FY 2016 to the
lowest real levels in a decade. Compared to the President's
Budget, the cuts would result in tens of thousands of the
Nation's most vulnerable children losing access to Head
Start, more than two million fewer workers receiving job
training and employment services, and thousands fewer
scientific and medical research awards and grants, adversely
impacting the pace of discovery and innovation, along with
other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class,
and Americans working hard to reach the middle class.
Maintaining sequestration would also negatively impact
programs that provide important services to our Nation's
veterans and are funded in appropriations bills where House
Republicans propose to make even deeper cuts relative to the
President's Budget than in H.R. 2029. For example, American
Job Centers serve 1.2 million veterans annually, including
300,000 who receive intensive employment services. Transition
assistance provides 200,000 service members each year with
employment guidance and information as they prepare to enter
the civilian workforce. And hundreds of thousands of veterans
rely on a wide range of Department of Housing and Urban
Development programs for housing support and homeless
assistance each year.
Sequestration levels would also put our national security
at unnecessary risk, not only through pressures on defense
spending, but also through pressures on State, USAID,
Homeland Security, and other non-defense programs that help
keep us safe. More broadly, the strength of our economy and
the security of our Nation are linked. That is why the
President has been clear that he is not willing to lock in
sequestration going forward, nor will he accept fixes to
defense without also fixing non-defense.
The President's senior advisors would recommend that he
veto H.R. 2029 and any other legislation that implements the
current Republican budget framework, which blocks the
investments we need for our economy to compete in the future.
The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress
to reverse sequestration for defense and non-defense
priorities and to offset the cost with commonsense spending
and tax expenditure cuts, as Members of Congress from both
parties have urged.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to
share additional views regarding the Committee's version of
the bill.
Veterans Affairs Medical Care. The Administration
appreciates the Committee's support for our Nation's
veterans; however, the Administration objects to the
Committee's overall $585 million reduction to the FY 2016
Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Care request. If enacted, this
reduction would negatively impact medical care services for
tens of thousands of veterans and reduce VA's ability to
activate new and replacement facilities with sufficient staff
and equipment and to adequately maintain facility
infrastructure.
Veterans Affairs Construction. The Administration objects
to the Committee's $582 million reduction to the FY 2016 VA
major construction request. This reduction would prevent
building upgrades and renovations, including necessary
expansions to medical facilities and national cemeteries that
would improve services to our veterans. The bill would
significantly constrain VA's ability to make progress on its
highest priority capital projects.
Other Veterans Affairs Reductions. The Administration also
objects to the Committee's other reductions to the overall VA
request, including $159 million in reductions for employee
awards, bonuses, and the President's proposed 1.3 percent pay
raise for Federal employees. As VA attempts to enhance
staffing to deliver better care to veterans, these reductions
will hinder the Department's ability to recruit and retain
personnel critical to the provision of benefits and services
to veterans The Administration urges the Congress to provide
the proposed 1.3 percent pay increase for Federal civilian
employees.
Military Construction. The Administration objects to the
Committee's underfunding of military construction in the
President's FY 2016 base defense budget by $1.3 billion,
which will delay or defer projects that serve critical needs
for members of our Armed Forces and their families. The
projects requested in the FY 2016 Budget reflect the highest
priority projects for the Department of Defense, and the
Administration requests full funding for each project.
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Funds. The
Administration strongly objects to the Committee's use of
$532 million of OCO funds intended for wars and not subject
to the budget caps to pay for long-term infrastructure
investments. Shifting long-term defense costs to OCO is bad
budget policy and bad defense policy, since it undermines
long-term planning. Moreover, the Administration has made
clear that it will not accept attempts to fix defense without
nondefense by using OCO as a mechanism to evade the defense
budget cap.
Detainee Matters. The Administration strongly objects to
section 512 of the bill, which prohibits the use of funds to
construct, renovate, or expand any facility in the United
States to house individuals held in the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay. This provision would constrain the
flexibility that the Nation's Armed Forces and
counterterrorism professionals need to best protect U.S.
national security, intruding upon the Executive Branch's
ability to carry out its mission.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress as the FY 2016 appropriations process moves forward.
____
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 2028--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2016
(Rep. Rogers, R-KY, Apr. 28, 2015)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
2028, making appropriations for energy and water development,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2016, and for other purposes. The bill drastically underfunds
critical investments that develop American energy sources to
build a clean and secure energy future; develop and
commercialize the emerging technologies that create high-
quality jobs and enhance the Nation's economic
competitiveness; and improve resilience against current and
ongoing climate impacts that threaten our economy, public
health, and natural resources. As a result, it would put at
risk U.S. competitiveness in new markets for clean energy
industries such as advanced vehicles, advanced manufacturing,
energy efficiency for homes and businesses, and domestic
renewable energy such as wind, solar, and biomass. It would
also harm efforts to implement the President's nuclear
strategy and advance counter-proliferation objectives.
Furthermore, the legislation includes highly problematic
ideological riders, including provisions that threaten to
undermine our ability to protect a resource that is essential
to America's health: clean water. If the President were
presented with H.R. 2028, his senior advisors would recommend
that he veto the bill.
In addition, enacting H.R. 2028, while adhering to the
congressional Republican budget's overall spending limits for
fiscal year (FY) 2016 would hurt our economy and shortchange
investments in middle-class priorities. Sequestration was
never intended to take effect: rather, it was supposed to
threaten such drastic cuts to both defense and non-defense
funding that policymakers would be motivated to come to the
table and reduce the deficit through smart, balanced reforms.
The Republican framework would bring base discretionary
funding for both defense and non-defense for FY 2016 to the
lowest real levels in a decade. Compared to the President's
Budget, the cuts would result in tens of thousands of the
Nation's most vulnerable children losing access to Head
Start, more than two million fewer workers receiving job
training and employment services, and thousands fewer
scientific and medical research awards and grants, adversely
impacting the pace of discovery and innovation, along with
other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class,
and Americans working hard to reach the middle class.
Sequestration levels would also put our national security
at unnecessary risk, not only through pressures on defense
spending, but also through pressures on State, USAID,
Homeland Security, and other non-defense programs that help
keep us safe. More broadly, the strength of our economy and
the security of our Nation are linked. That is why the
President has been clear that he is not willing to lock in
sequestration going forward, nor will he accept fixes to
defense without also fixing non-defense.
[[Page H2513]]
The President's senior advisors would recommend that he
veto H.R. 2028 and any other legislation that implements the
current Republican budget framework, which blocks the
investments needed for our economy to compete in the future.
The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress
to reverse sequestration for defense and non-defense
priorities and offset the cost with commonsense spending and
tax expenditure cuts, as Members of Congress from both
parties have urged.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to
share additional views regarding the Committee's version of
the bill.
Department of Energy (DOE)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The
Administration strongly objects to the $1.6 billion provided
in the bill for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. Overall this level is $1.1 billion below the FY 2016
Budget request. Relative to the FY 2016 Budget request, the
bill reduces funding for renewable energy by 49 percent,
sustainable transportation by 35 percent, and energy
efficiency by 40 percent. The proposed reductions
significantly underfund critical activities that support the
development and commercialization of clean energy
technologies. At this funding level, the number of research,
development, and demonstration projects supported in
cooperation with industry, universities, and the national
labs would be reduced, limiting innovation and technological
advancement, curtailing solutions to cut U.S. dependence on
oil and reduce energy waste, and undermining the Nation's
industrial competitiveness in the future global clean energy
economy. The Congress is urged to fully fund the FY 2016
Budget request of $2.7 billion. The Administration is also
disappointed that the bill does not include transfer language
necessary to support joint efforts with the Navy and the
Department of Agriculture to develop advanced drop-in
biofuels for military applications, a provision included in
the FY 2015 enacted bill.
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). The
Administration objects to the $280 million provided in the
bill for ARPA-E, which is $45 million below the FY 2016
Budget request. This funding reduction would impact
investments and delay improvements in technologies that
reduce energy-related emissions, increase energy efficiency
across multiple economic sectors, and reduce energy imports.
Fossil Energy and Nuclear Energy. The Administration notes
that the bill includes funding above the FY 2016 Budget
request in some areas that are already well established in
the market, including for nuclear and fossil energy, and yet
makes drastic reductions in those that are most crucial to
the Nation's clean energy future and continued U.S.
technology leadership. The Administration encourages the
Congress to fund DOE's energy programs at the requested
level, as this balances the portfolio among items of short,
medium, and long-term progress and promotes U.S. leadership
in these technology areas.
Office of Science. While the Administration appreciates the
Committee's support for the Office of Science, the level of
funding provided, which is $240 million below the FY 2016
Budget request, is insufficient to maintain U.S. leadership
in high performance computing as the United States moves into
capable exascale systems to support discovery science,
national security, and economic competitiveness.
Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium. The Administration
objects to language in the bill that requires the Secretary
of Energy to continue construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility. This language is unnecessarily
restrictive and would preclude alternative, and potentially
more cost-effective, approaches to implementing U.S.
commitments in the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement and its 2010 annex to dispose of excess weapons
plutonium. DOE contracted for an independent validation of
costs for plutonium disposition alternatives in accordance
with congressional mandates. The results of that analysis
will inform the Administration's approach to plutonium
disposition. Information on the first phase of that analysis
was provided to the Congress on April 21st.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Administration
opposes the $212 million level provided for SPR. In addition
to base program activities, the FY 2016 Budget request of
$257 million includes resources to fund timely replacement of
equipment and physical systems, to begin to address the
backlog of deferred maintenance activities, and to enhance
distribution flexibility and reliability.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). The Administration
urges the Congress to fully fund the FY 2016 Budget request
of $131 million for EIA to support expanded domestic energy
data and analysis, address critical energy data gaps
(including monthly movements of crude oil by rail), and
increase integration of EIA energy data with Canada and
Mexico.
Yucca Mountain. The Administration objects to the funding
provided in the bill for Yucca Mountain and is disappointed
with the rejection of the practical solutions proposed in the
President's nuclear waste strategy. As reflected in the FY
2016 Budget request, this strategy incorporates important and
workable elements, such as consent-based siting, interim
storage of waste, and program funding reforms that are
essential to the success of a Nuclear Waste Program.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Yucca Mountain. The
Administration objects to the funding provided in the bill
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue
adjudication of the Yucca Mountain license application.
Office of the Federal Coordinator (OFC) for Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Projects. The Administration appreciates
full funding for the OFC at the level of the FY 2016 Budget
request, but is disappointed that the statutory amendment
proposed in the FY 2016 Budget request is not included. The
amendment is critical to the OFC's ability to fulfill its
mission under current market conditions, which have changed
the nature of projects being proposed.
Corps of Engineers--Civil Works (Corps)
Overall Funding. The bill provides nearly $5.6 billion for
the Corps civil works program. The Administration believes
the more appropriate overall funding levels proposed in the
FY 2016 Budget request would limit wasteful spending on
projects that provide a low or marginal return to the Nation
and would avoid reductions in other priority areas, such as
protecting the Nation's water resources and important
investments in clean energy technologies.
Corps Regulatory Program. The Administration encourages the
Congress to fund the Corps regulatory program at the
requested level. A $5 million reduction in funding would
inhibit the Corps' ability to issue permits in a timely
manner and to protect important aquatic resources, while
undertaking needed programmatic improvements, including
implementation of the pending Clean Water rulemaking.
Clean Water Act (C WA). The Administration believes that
the CWA riders in the bill undermine efforts to protect
America's clean water resources, which are critical to
American families and businesses. The Administration strongly
objects to section 105 of the bill in particular, which would
disrupt the Administration's current efforts to clarify the
scope of CWA, hamstring future regulatory efforts, and create
significant ambiguity regarding existing regulations and
guidance.
Firearms Policy. The Administration objects to section 107
of the bill, which prohibits the Corps from enforcing its ban
on firearms at a water resources development project. If
enacted, this provision would prevent the Secretary of the
Army from using the discretion now provided in law to enforce
or revise the current Corps policy, based on considerations
such as the security of critical infrastructure, public and
employee safety, and the manner in which the firearm is
carried (e.g., open vs. concealed). Corps rangers are not
authorized to carry firearms and do not have full Federal law
enforcement authority.
National Ocean Policy. The Administration objects to
section 505 of the bill, which prohibits any funding provided
in the bill from being used to implement the marine planning
components of the National Ocean Policy. This rider would
prohibit DOE and the Corps from participating in marine and
coastal planning efforts, a process to better determine how
the ocean, the Nation's coasts, and the Great Lakes are
managed in an efficient manner.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah
Project
Overall Funding. The bill provides nearly $1.1 billion for
the Bureau of Reclamation and $9.9 million for the Central
Utah Project. The Administration appreciates the Committee's
support for the Bureau of Reclamation water resources
program.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress as the FY 2016 appropriations process moves forward.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased with the level of
support provided in these pieces of legislation for essential military,
veterans, defense, and water resources programs, they should not serve
as vehicles to make substantive policy changes to our Nation's gun laws
or gut important environmental protections; nor should we stand idly by
while Republicans in Congress slash funding for critically important
veterans and military services under the guise of a spending increase.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I talked about last night, I
offered an amendment that would self-execute to the rule that would
strike section 107 from the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This
is one of the riders in H.R. 2028 that would allow guns to be carried
on Army Corps land.
If enacted in its current form, this legislation would strip the
Secretary of the Army from using the discretion currently provided to
enforce or revise the Corps' policy prohibiting firearms on Corps land.
Removing the discretionary powers from law enforcement officials that
allow them to determine what is best for the security of our Nation's
infrastructure and the safety of public employees, in my judgment, is
dangerous and wrong.
Substantive changes to our gun laws do not belong in an
appropriations bill.
[[Page H2514]]
And that could not have happened but for a waiver, which my friends
tend to do for a variety of measures, and they wind up being poison
pills in substantive legislation.
While I believe in the right of Americans to own firearms, last night
I made it very clear: I own a gun. When I was a child, at age 7, I had
a BB gun. When I was 12 years old, I had a single-shot rifle. And I was
taught, as were all of my friends, to not point those guns at people
unless you intended to do them harm.
We, as boys, had the same kinds of fights that I imagine occur at any
of our institutions. But not one of us would run home and get a gun or
carry a gun. To proliferate this society with the variety of gun laws
that exist, where people can carry guns openly on Corps land or
concealed in certain other States, that is just plain crazy.
Last night, I referenced a statement by then-Surgeon General Satcher
that I used again today: ``Youth violence is an epidemic.'' He
delivered that in response to a report he commissioned in the year
2002. At the time, his study revealed that 13 children each day died as
a result of guns.
Indeed, the gun violence epidemic that plagues our Nation has not
diminished in recent years. In Riviera Beach last week, a child 2 years
old was shot. In the same constituency that I am privileged to serve, a
mother was fatally shot by her 3-year-old that got her gun from her
purse.
People, we need to pay attention to what is going on. And I intend in
May to raise this issue in this body and around this Nation so that
people can learn just how many people are dying in this way.
I want to make it very, very clear. The National Rifle Association
does not control this body nor the Florida Legislature nor any other
body. As I said, I don't mind arguing for the Second Amendment. But to
carry it to the extent that it has gone is just plain wrong. Everybody
in our society knows that, and I am going to try to make sure that they
continue to know that.
Now, there is another thing about this bill. It locks in
sequestration. The administration speaks to that subject in their
Statement of Administration Policy.
The Republican framework would bring base discretionary funding for
both defense and nondefense to the lowest levels in a decade. Compared
to the President's budget, the cuts would result in tens of thousands
of the Nation's most vulnerable children losing access to Head Start;
more than 2 million fewer workers receiving job training and employment
services; and thousands fewer scientific and medical research awards
and grants, adversely impacting the pace of discovery, any innovation,
along with other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class,
and Americans working hard to reach the middle class.
Sequestration levels were never meant to put us in this unnecessary
risk, and I would urge that we not go forward in this manner.
I would say to my good friend from Georgia that we may be on the
brink of what excites him--and it would excite me as well--if we got
ourselves a balanced budget, but a part of that has gimmickry in it as
well. It is done on the reconciliation because the great majority of
people over in the other body may not have the same sentiment as some
who serve on the relevant committee at this point in time in the U.S.
Senate.
Cliche allows that Yogi Berra be utilized here; that is, ``It ain't
over 'til it's over.''
I was told last week that we were going to pass this thing, that it
was going to come back from the Senate on Wednesday. Last time I
looked, this was Wednesday. Or as my daddy used to say, It is Wednesday
all day long unless it rains. I never did know what would happen if it
rained. I guess it would just be a rainy Wednesday.
But it ain't here Wednesday. And now I am hearing from my good friend
from Georgia that they are close. That is what happened when we set up
this thing with this special committee, superpeople, supercommittee
that was supposed to bring us back a budget, and then missed out on
opportunities with Erskine Bowles and brought us back this
sequestration that has this body hamstrung and has us in the position
of allowing that authorizers and appropriators are locked into the
position that they are in because of sequestration.
We need to get rid of that. We need to return to earmarks. We need to
do a number of things that will allow for this body--and not for the
bureaucracy--to control many aspects of what is the implementation of
policy that is made here.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I have stated a number of reasons. I
will not go into every one of the riders. There are others, and I am
sure people are going to speak about them. But I urge a ``no'' vote on
the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida says, It's not over 'til it's
over.
I say to my friend, it is only just beginning. It is only just
beginning with this rule today. With the passage of this rule today,
Mr. Speaker, we are beginning the 2016 appropriations process. And we
are doing it in ways that we have not done before since I received a
voting card in this body.
Number one, we are beginning at the earliest date in 40 years. Not
since 1973 has this Chamber gotten about the people's business as early
as we are this year. The people deserve it. The people have earned it.
And we are delivering on it today. I am proud of that fact.
Number two, Mr. Speaker, we are, in fact, on the brink of the first
balanced budget conference report this body has seen since 2003. It is
too long coming. We have had to deem appropriations levels year after
year after year, not on just two bills, as we are today, but on the
entire package. That report could be filed as early as this afternoon,
and there is no question but that it is going to pass both of these
bodies. It is good work from this institution and the Senate across the
Hill.
But, Mr. Speaker, as you could hear in the passion in my friend from
Florida's voice, not everyone is going to be happy with every line in
these two bills.
{time} 1345
I don't have to just look to the Democratic side of the aisle. I can
look to the Republican side of the aisle. Not everyone is going to be
happy with every line of this bill; but do you know what, any Member
can come and change any line.
The Rules Committee protected no language in this bill. Any Member
can come and change any line. Any Member can come and make these bills
better. Any Member can come and have their district's voice heard. All
you have to do is find 217 of your friends to agree with you; we will
pass it, and we will send it to the United States Senate for
consideration.
Mr. Speaker, that is the way it ought to be. These are going to be
some long nights we are going to have; these are going to be some
lengthy amendment debates we are going to have; these are going to be
some vote-a-ramas we are going to have, but America is going to be the
better for it because the laws of the land that we pass are going to be
better for it.
I have the Statement of Administration Policy here, Mr. Speaker. I
have one for each one of the bills that this rule makes in order. The
President has said in these Statements of Administration Policy that
his senior advisers are going to recommend that he veto these bills.
Why? It is because these bills and other legislation implement the
current Republican budget framework which blocks the needed investments
for our economy to compete in the future.
Mr. Speaker, it is not the Republican budget framework. It is called
the law of the land as signed by President Barack Obama. We can pretend
the law doesn't exist, or we can confront the law as it exists. That is
what these bills do, a 6 percent increase in veterans funding and a 3
percent increase in our energy and water investment. In a time of
austere budgets, we are plussing up those accounts that are so
important to our constituents back home.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for this rule, I urge strong
support for the underlying bills, and I urge strong support for
beginning the process where every single Member will be able to have
his or her voice heard.
It is the way this institution ought to be, and it is the way this
institution will be if we pass this rule today.
[[Page H2515]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 651.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 186, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 176]
YEAS--240
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--186
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--5
Chaffetz
Cleaver
Cummings
Engel
Royce
{time} 1415
Messrs. PETERSON, MOULTON, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________