[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 12, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4445-H4452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2740, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, 
    HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 436 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 436

       Resolved, That 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 further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 2740) making appropriations 
     for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments 
     en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution, and 
     available pro forma amendments described in section 4 of 
     House Resolution 431.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part A of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may 
     be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except amendments 
     described in section 4 of House Resolution 431, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole.
       (c) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules may be offered at any time during 
     the consideration of the bill for amendment, may be offered 
     only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any 
     time before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment 
     except amendments described in section 4 of House Resolution 
     431, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
       (d) All points of order against further amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments 
     en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except amendments described 
     in section 4 of House Resolution 431, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 
     amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Woodall), 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.

                              {time}  1315


                             General Leave

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules 
Committee met and reported the rule, House Resolution 436, providing 
for consideration of H.R. 2740, the Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2020.
  The rule provides for further consideration of H.R. 2740 under a 
structured rule and makes in order 115 amendments. The rule provides no 
further general debate.
  The chair of the Appropriations Committee may also offer amendments 
en bloc consisting of amendments made in order by the rule and not 
earlier disposed of.
  Finally, the rule includes one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, it was only a few months ago that we were standing here 
voting to end the longest government shutdown in the history of the 
United States, a shutdown that hurt so many of our constituents, 
constituents like David Pesko, an FAA air traffic controller at Ontario 
Airport.
  He was in escrow to purchase a home, and, without a paycheck coming 
in, he had to rely on his family and friends' generosity in order to 
make ends meet.
  We owe David and the American people much more, and that is why I am 
especially proud of the timely introduction of these appropriations 
bills. It exemplifies the hard work of my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee and this majority's commitment to good 
governance.
  Mr. Speaker, in years past, we have relied strongly on omnibus 
spending

[[Page H4446]]

bills to fund the government. But now, with the hard work done by 
Members on both sides of the aisle, this majority is leading us in a 
return to regular order.
  As has often been said on this very floor, the primary job of 
Congress is to fund the American government and keep it open and 
operating. Our constituents deserve no less.
  With this package under consideration today, the House will do just 
that with respect to 4 of the 12 spending bills.
  In passing this bill, we will provide crucial funding for services 
across broad areas of the government and fulfill our promises to the 
American people. That funding includes historic investments in programs 
that provide opportunities for millions of people, including my 
constituents in the Inland Empire.
  Perhaps more important than what is included in this bill is what is 
not included. This minibus rejects the President's draconian budget 
cuts that would have hurt every American, but especially women and 
children.
  Instead, we have won increased funding for a number of important 
priorities.
  This bill boosts biomedical research at the National Institutes of 
Health, expands opioid abuse treatment and prevention programs, and 
launches new initiatives for maternal and child health.
  I recently visited three health clinics in my district that provide 
30,000 families with lifesaving care.
  This bill provides $400 million for the Title X Family Planning 
Program so that everyone in the Inland Empire and across America can 
continue to have access to cancer screenings, STI tests, reproductive 
care, and other lifesaving services.
  It also protects against the administration's policies that prevent a 
woman from making choices about her future, like when to have a child.
  When women do decide to become mothers, this bill supports them by 
investing in working families and our children with $7.8 billion for 
the Childcare and Development Block Grant program.
  Passing this bill will demonstrate our commitment to the ideal that 
all students deserve a quality, safe, and affordable education, and 
that commitment is realized in over $24 billion in funding for Federal 
Student Aid programs, almost $2 billion more than the President's 
insufficient request.
  Just as important is this bill's acknowledgement of how far we have 
to go in helping underserved communities, the bill provides $917 
million to assist minority-serving institutions, including $150 million 
for Hispanic-serving institutions like Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State San 
Bernardino, and UC Riverside, which prepare thousands of students in my 
district to be tomorrow's leaders.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also happy to report that this legislation provides 
the funding necessary for a 3.1 percent pay raise for our 
servicemembers, who continue to serve our Nation around the world.
  As the mother of an Air Force veteran, it is wonderful news to hear 
that our servicemembers are being acknowledged for the hard work that 
they do keeping our Nation safe, at home and abroad.
  In addition to paying our servicemembers more, this bill will protect 
our men and women in uniform from one of the most common harms that 
they encounter: sexual assault.
  The $38 million in additional funding for DOD'S sexual assault 
prevention and response programs will ensure that survivors have 
representation while navigating the complicated military justice 
process, that they will not have to wait years for a resolution--years, 
Mr. Speaker--as one of my constituents had to do.
  This bill not only invests in our priorities at home; it advances our 
priorities abroad. I am particularly pleased with increased investments 
in certain areas, including global reproductive health and aid to 
Central American countries.
  This bill empowers countless women who are the backbone of their 
families around the world by increasing funding for family planning 
programs, reversing the President's disastrous global gag rule, and 
contributing $55.5 million to the United Nations Population Fund.

  Robust funding is included for counter-narcotics and law enforcement 
efforts in Colombia, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.
  This bill also ensures that the funding provided goes to the right 
people--the right people, Mr. Speaker--instead of the corrupt officials 
that undermine democracy and misuse U.S. aid. This is especially 
important given the recent report regarding corruption in the Northern 
Triangle countries of Guatemala and Honduras.
  And, finally, the last part of this bill that I would like to 
highlight is what we are doing to invest in our energy and water 
infrastructure.
  The bill rejects the President's shortsighted proposed cuts to key 
energy and water programs and, instead, invests $46.6 billion to 
rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, build the next generation of 
clean energy technologies, and combat the urgent threat that is climate 
change.
  This is a good bill. This is a bill that should be signed into law, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule so that we can get back 
to regular order and avoid another costly shutdown.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me the 
time.
  We finished up in the Rules Committee, I think, before 10 p.m. last 
night. I was optimistic that we finished up that early.
  It is not the Members you need to worry about, Mr. Speaker. It is the 
staff of the Rules Committee you need to worry about, because they had 
hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of amendments submitted that they 
were going through all weekend long, trying to sort out what are those 
amendments that could be made in order, what are those amendments that 
would need waivers of the rules, what are those amendments that could 
be considered on the floor and not be repetitive.
  It is an amazing burden on the staff to have to go through all those 
amendments, Mr. Speaker, and it is an unnecessary burden.
  You weren't here at the time, Mr. Speaker, but I am looking right 
down here below me at the gentleman from Kentucky. He used to be the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and was the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee the last time we came to the House floor under 
regular order, as my friend from California suggests, and we allowed 
every Member of this institution--everyone who had been elected by 
their constituents back home, everyone who has a voting card--to come 
and offer any idea that they had to improve upon the underlying bill.
  I don't take issue with much of what my friend from California said 
about many of the good things in this bill. There are many good things 
in this bill.
  But what I love about the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker, 
different from the Rules Committee, is they come to the House year 
after year and say we have done an amazing job working together in a 
bipartisan way in the Appropriations Committee, but the other Members 
of the House who don't serve on that committee, if they have some 
expertise that they think can improve the bill, bring it on. Bring it 
on. Let's go down to that House floor. Let's have that festival of 
democracy. Let's test those ideas, and let's send the best product that 
we can to the President's desk.

                              {time}  1330

  My friend from California says that this is a good bill and that it 
should absolutely be signed by the President. She could be right. I 
would probably disagree with her, Mr. Speaker, but she could be right.
  The fact of the matter is, the law of the land, as it exists today, 
won't let us implement this bill. This bill spends above those caps, 
the statutory spending caps passed by the Congress and signed by the 
President.
  This bill cannot become law at these levels. If it were to, we would 
have an automatic sequester that brings the levels down.
  That is a terrible way to govern. We have learned that lesson over 
the past 10 years together.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish I didn't have to point to the gentleman from 
Kentucky and say remember the days when

[[Page H4447]]

everybody's voice mattered in this institution. Remember those days. 
That day should be today. It is not an easy pathway to get back to.
  I remember when we were trying to do open rules on the Republican 
side. My Democratic colleagues would come to the floor and offer 
amendments that they knew would pass with a minority of Republican 
votes and a lot of Democratic votes. Then they would vote in favor of 
that amendment to change the bill, but they would vote against the 
final bill, knowing it would not be able to pass without their support.
  That is a great strategy, and it has been used by both sides, if my 
colleagues want to be in the business of making a point. It is an awful 
strategy if my colleagues want to be in the business of making a 
difference. If Members came to this institution to govern instead of to 
get the next sound bite, that is a terrible path to be on.
  Mr. Speaker, if Members went through those hundreds of amendments the 
way that the Rules Committee staff went through them over the weekend, 
they would see good idea after good idea after good idea that has been 
turned away before it could be considered on the floor of this House. I 
don't know whether those amendments would have passed or failed. I know 
some of them would have passed; I know some of them would have failed.
  There was a time in this institution when we let the votes decide, 
when we let the membership decide.
  Mr. Speaker, we have changed those rules. It is now 13 men and women 
who sit on the Rules Committee who decide.
  I value my friend from California's suggestion that we get back to 
regular order, and I know it is not an easy path to follow. This bill 
is the most open we have had so far this year, and yet, it still denies 
Member after Member, on both sides of the aisle, an opportunity to have 
their constituents' voices heard.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better. If we speak with one voice in this 
body and reject this rule, we will do better. All it takes is the 
courage of our convictions to do that.
  I hope my Members will stand with me in aspiring to do better today 
than we did yesterday and better still tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to remind my colleague that I also serve on the 
Appropriations Committee, and we had a very open and transparent 
process. Every subcommittee invited all Members to come before us to 
present their ideas or their requests to the subcommittees of the 
Appropriations Committee. We have also supported 95 percent of the 
written requests from all Members.
  So to say that it was not transparent and that Members did not have 
an opportunity to come before and present their ideas is incorrect.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Watson Coleman).
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for giving me this opportunity to speak on what I think is a 
very important and very good bill.
  I am here to speak on H.R. 2740, which contains the fiscal year 2020 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; Defense; State and 
Foreign Operations; and Energy and Water Development funding bills.
  As a new member of the Appropriations Committee this year, I am 
particularly proud to support this bill, which includes, among many 
other things, $100 million in programming for reentry programs; $250 
million for registered apprenticeships; and $128 million for Youth 
Build, a program that provides critical skills to youth in my district, 
which is New Jersey's 12th Congressional District.
  I thank Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro for her leadership of our 
subcommittee. I was pleased to work with her to include language and 
funding that addresses maternal mortality, including various provisions 
to address the persistent gaps in our healthcare system that result in 
Black mothers being 2 to 6 times more likely to die than White moms.
  I also thank her for working with me to include funding to address 
the suicide epidemic among our youth. This is needed urgently, as the 
suicide rate for children has increased 70 percent in the last decade, 
with a disproportionate increase among Black youth. To inform further 
efforts to address this epidemic, the bill requests a report from the 
Surgeon General on contributing factors and evidence-based 
interventions.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), a colleague of mine on the bipartisan 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in rule debate today because 
my very reasonable amendment was not made in order. The amendment was 
germane to the bill, written with proper offsets, and in accordance 
with House rules. The denial of my amendment was purely political.
  I wanted to debate my amendment on its merits because the passage of 
my amendment would mean jobs for families in Minnesota's Eighth 
Congressional District.
  In northern Minnesota, there are vast reserves of copper, nickel, and 
other precious metals, offering the opportunity for northern Minnesota 
to power our economy while providing high-wage union jobs and 
diminishing our reliance on foreign resources.
  The Twin Metals project has a long and difficult regulatory review 
ahead because our approval processes are the strongest in the world. 
Twin Metals is following the process. We require that they cross every 
``t'' and dot every ``i,'' and they will employ our friends and 
neighbors in good mining jobs of the future.
  Unfortunately, politicians in Washington and the Twin Cities metro 
area oppose this project. They know that we have the strongest 
environmental reviews in the world, and they know Twin Metals will have 
the opportunity to succeed, so they decided to change the rules.
  They included language in this spending bill creating a ``study'' 
that does nothing more than delay this project. It is changing the 
rules when they know a project has a great chance to be successful.
  Instead of including it in the base bill, they snuck it into 
committee report language. Instead of making my amendment in order, 
they decided to reject it, all because they want to interfere with a 
promising project in Minnesota District Eight.
  Twin Metals will offer a mine plan of operation in the coming months. 
In that mine plan, they will lay out how they will extract our minerals 
and store tailings in an environmentally sound way. They will 
illustrate how they plan to meet or exceed all existing standards.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. I want to debate the 
merits of my amendment by discussing how this will follow the rules and 
benefit jobs in my district. Instead, I am here to discuss the failed 
process and how antimining groups changed the rules to benefit their 
antimining ideology.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I urge my colleagues to do so as 
well.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their work on 
this bill.
  I am very proud to support this rule for this very outstanding bill 
package that makes For the People investments to give every person a 
better chance for a better life.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a few issues.
  First, with this legislation, we recognize that when women succeed, 
America and the world succeed. We do this with many, many outstanding 
investments.
  When women in our country and the world are educated and healthy and 
have economic opportunity, their communities will be more prosperous 
and peaceful for everyone.
  We have increased investments in Head Start and childcare programs, 
medical research, family planning, girls' education, fighting gender-
based

[[Page H4448]]

violence, and supporting women-owned enterprises.
  Mr. Speaker, we are repealing the administration's cruel domestic and 
global gag and religious refusal rules that are cutting off lifesaving 
healthcare to so many people in our own country and around the world.
  We are also making smart investments in our country's infrastructure. 
So important to my home State of Florida is the restoration of 
Florida's Everglades, to keep the drinking water clean and safe for 
over 8 million people.
  I want to add, as a mother of a retired United States marine war 
veteran of many years and representative to so many honorable 
servicemen and -women, I recognize their selfless and brave service to 
our country. So I am especially pleased with the funding for the 
Veterans Student Success Program on college campuses that will help 
veterans transition to student and civilian life.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is an outstanding bill for the people of 
this country, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill 
package.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a gentleman who offered a germane amendment that 
was rejected.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the concerns of my colleague 
and friend, Mr. Stauber, over the rejection of our reasonable amendment 
to this bill in the Rules Committee.
  In their very last days, the Obama administration ordered Federal 
control of Minnesota land in the form of a mineral withdrawal proposal. 
We were told it was a step to protect the environment when, in reality, 
it was nothing more than Washington telling Minnesotans that they can't 
be responsible for their own land and resources.

  Blocking exploration and potential development has devastated the 
region. That is exactly what this bill will continue to do today if it 
passes.
  I introduced the MINER Act 2 years ago to restore the rights and 
responsibilities back to Minnesotans as stewards of our lands. The 
House passed our bill last year, closely followed by action from this 
administration to restore our rights. Yet, bureaucrats from Washington 
are at it again, this time including a provision in this bill to create 
the ``study'' that is yet another barrier, another delay tactic outside 
of the normal regulatory review process.
  The amendment I offered with Mr. Stauber would address this and 
simply allow the process to move forward. Let us be clear: Any proposed 
mine in the area would still need to go through a long and thoroughly 
detailed review through the National Environmental Policy Act and other 
regulatory processes. Leaseholders would be allowed to propose a mine 
plan of operation and demonstrate how they will protect the environment 
in the surrounding area. If that plan does not meet the high standards 
that our State and country require, it will be rejected.
  Yet, I am disappointed by some of my Minnesota colleagues who do not 
have faith in the people of our great State. They don't have faith that 
our people would want to protect our own land while ensuring 
development and a better future for our children.
  My colleagues don't want to entertain the potential for thousands of 
high-paying, labor-negotiated jobs for northern Minnesota and the 
surrounding region. These same men and women, these miners, are 
Minnesotans first.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. EMMER. These same men and women, these miners, are Minnesotans 
first. We are proud of our State's natural beauty, and we are experts 
when it comes to how to preserve it.
  I believe my State is perfectly capable of abiding by the existing 
rules and regulations and determining the best way to use our land.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I urge my colleagues to do so as 
well.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Spano).
  Mr. SPANO. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I was one of 169 House 
Members who signed a letter to President Trump urging him to reject any 
appropriations legislation that would undermine pro-life protections. 
The President agreed. He agreed that long-standing pro-life provisions 
should be retained and has promised to veto any bill that weakens those 
pro-life protections.
  Unfortunately, the legislation before us not only strips pro-life 
provisions, but it includes language that, in fact, undermines efforts 
to promote life. In this bill, Democrats included provisions that would 
prevent the Trump administration from implementing its Title X and 
conscience protection rules to protect life.
  The Title X Family Planning rule ensures that Federal funds do not go 
to facilities that perform or promote abortion as family planning. For 
more than 40 years, this country has operated under the policy that not 
one cent of taxpayer money can be used to fund abortion.
  We are a Nation that deeply values religious liberty, and this rule 
further protects Americans' tax dollars from being forced to subsidize 
entities that kill unborn children.
  Accordingly, I am fully supportive of Representative Roby's 
amendment, that we will debate this afternoon, to strike the language 
that would halt this important rule and the other amendments that will 
restore pro-life policies to this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support these 
provisions.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, it is tiring to hear from so 
many * * * males on this floor talk about a woman's right to choose.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my friend if she 
would like to change her last statement.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, if it pleases my colleague on 
the other side, I will withdraw my statement about sex-starved males on 
the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the statement?
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I will agree to withdraw my 
statement regarding----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague well, and I thoroughly 
enjoy working with her on the Rules Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Is the gentleman reserving the right----
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am reserving the right to object.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my statement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has reserved the 
right to object.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California. I do not 
object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will put it in different terms. It is tiring to be 
here on this floor or in committee as a woman and to continue to be 
counseled about what types of affordable planning, whether it is family 
planning, conversations that rightfully I deserve to have with my own 
doctor.
  Choosing when women want to have a family and to avoid pregnancies 
before they become pregnancies, it is unfortunate that that is 
something that continues to be denied to American women day in and day 
out on this floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, while we have many champions of life in 
this institution on both sides of the aisle, none is stronger than the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), a tireless fighter for life.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration 
today reverses several--at least nine--life-affirming, pro-life 
policies, including conscience protection, Title X reform, the 
Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance, and more.

[[Page H4449]]

  This is a pro-abortion piece of legislation on steroids. But passage 
won't be the last word.
  Trump will veto it and we will sustain that veto.
  No one, including doctors, nurses, and LPNs, Mr. Speaker, and no 
entity, like hospitals or health insurance plans, should ever be 
compelled against their will into performing, facilitating, or 
subsidizing abortion.
  This bill eviscerates the administration's conscience protection 
rule. In late February, HHS promulgated the Protect Life rule to 
reassert portions of President Reagan's original Title X regulation to 
end colocation of abortion clinics with family planning clinics under 
Title X. It also requires financial separation. That, too, is reversed 
by this piece of legislation.
  Among its provisions, the Protect Life rule also seeks to protect 
against child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, and human 
trafficking.
  H.R. 2740 also guts the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance 
policy, which ensures that our foreign aid holds harmless unborn 
children. It, again, is a Ronald Reagan policy expanded and reiterated, 
and it prevents taxpayer funds from going to--and this is grant money--
foreign NGOs that perform or promote abortion as a method of family 
planning.
  Mr. Speaker, the shocking number of unborn children killed in America 
is unconscionable--approximately 61 million dead babies since 1973--a 
death toll that equates to the entire population of Italy. All of this 
when our knowledge about unborn children and the breathtaking miracle 
of life before birth is unparalleled.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone here, parent or grandparent, knows that the first 
baby pictures today are of the child in the womb, the ultrasound 
pictures that go up on our refrigerators, so proud of the new baby. It 
is not that you are going to be a parent; you are a parent during those 
9 months.
  Yet the pro-abortion movement, like a modern day Flat Earth Society, 
continues to cling to outdated, indefensible arguments cloaked in 
euphemism.
  Even the seemingly benign word ``choice'' withers under scrutiny. 
Choice to do what? Dismember an unborn child piece by piece. Anyone who 
watched the movie ``Unplanned'' saw an ultrasound-guided abortion where 
the child was decimated right on the screen for all to see.
  Then there is, of course, RU-486, which first starves the baby to 
death, and then the baby is expelled from the womb. Then there are 
injections of chemical poisons--all of it violence against children.
  That is what the choice is all about: the choice of killing an 
innocent, defenseless, unborn child.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, contraception for women is 
not something that should be debated here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-
Allard) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
appropriations minibus.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Appropriations Minibus. These 
four Appropriations bills are an investment in the American public and 
provide robust funding for programs that strengthen our society.
  In the SFOPS bill, I am particularly pleased with the strong 
investments in the Northern Triangle region to address the push factors 
that cause migrants to seek refuge at our southern border.
  Specifically, the bill includes $10 million dollars to address sexual 
and gender-based violence in the region. Sexual violence has reached 
crisis levels in the last several years, causing women and children to 
leave their home countries and seek asylum in the United States.
  As vice-chair of the LHHS Subcommittee, I thank Chairwoman DeLauro 
and Ranking Member Cole for their leadership and commitment to the most 
vulnerable among us.
  This FY20 ``People's Bill'' upholds our promise to Americans by 
investing in workers' needs, supporting the education of our children, 
and ensuring individuals have access to quality health programs.
  The bill is a testament to our commitment to help people obtain good 
paying jobs. With increased funding for workforce training programs 
like Job Corps, and Apprenticeships, we are creating pathways to the 
middle class.
  The bill also invests in the future of our country by providing 
robust increases to crucial education programs.
  With an increase of $1 billion in Title I and IDEA, our most 
vulnerable students will receive the additional resources they need to 
receive the quality education they deserve.
  For higher education, increasing the maximum award of the Pell grant 
continues our fight against the rising costs of college.
  The bill also makes a strong investment in our nation's public health 
by increasing the CDC budget by $938 million above the 2019 enacted 
level.
  This includes critical investments in public health infrastructure to 
begin modernizing data surveillance and analytics at CDC. It is also 
the first investment in over 20 years for gun violence prevention 
research.
  The bill also increases funding for three of my top legislative 
priorities: fighting underage drinking, supporting newborn screening, 
and improving childbirth outcomes for women and infants in all 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to vote in support of this appropriations 
minibus to help safeguard the health and well-being of the most 
vulnerable in our country, to ensure we have a strong labor force and 
national economy, and to ensure our country is safe and secure.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Roy) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in light of the humanitarian crisis at our border and 
what is happening to the migrants who seek to come here and to the 
people of the United States of America, I ask unanimous consent to call 
up H.R. 3056, an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed 
funding for the humanitarian crisis at the border, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has 
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Does the gentlewoman from California yield for the purposes of this 
unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I will not. I will not yield 
for that purpose, and all time yielded is for the purpose of debate and 
debate only.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California does not 
yield; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Stauber) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 
3056, an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed funding 
for the humanitarian crisis at the border, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from California has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Biggs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, due to the humanitarian crisis and border 
crisis, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, an emergency 
supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the humanitarian 
crisis at the border, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from California has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Weber) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
H.R. 3056, an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed 
funding for the humanitarian crisis at the border, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from California has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to remind 
the Chamber that we tried to offer an amendment last night in committee 
that would have addressed this funding.

[[Page H4450]]

  The Rules Committee rejected the consideration by the whole House of 
a measure that would provide what we all agree is urgently needed 
funding. We are seeing some of that passion here at this moment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for 
the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, 
an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the 
humanitarian crisis at the border, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from California has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Perry) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, with record numbers of people coming across 
our border illegally, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, an 
emergency supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the 
humanitarian crisis at the border, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from California has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona 
(Mrs. Lesko), one of my colleagues on the Rules Committee, for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.

                              {time}  1400

  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, as a Congresswoman from the border State of 
Arizona, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, an emergency 
supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the humanitarian 
crisis at our southern border, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from California has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say when we 
had this conversation in the Rules Committee yesterday--again, my 
friend from California is on the Appropriations Committee--and she said 
we talked about bringing forward an emergency funding bill that is more 
comprehensive. We are working on expediting that.
  I would say to my friend, agreeing to one of these unanimous consent 
requests would be the absolute fastest way to expedite that if she 
would like to reconsider her position.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, an emergency 
supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the humanitarian 
crisis and catastrophe now at our border, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from California has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request, I yield to my neighbor from the great State of Georgia (Mr. 
Hice).
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  As one who just returned from the border, and having personally seen 
the enormity of the crisis there, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
H.R. 3056, an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed 
funding for the humanitarian crisis at the border, and I ask for its 
immediate action and consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from California has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).
  Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, to save lives at the border, I ask unanimous 
consent to call up H.R. 3056, an emergency supplemental to provide 
critically needed funding for the humanitarian crisis at the border, 
and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from California has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 
3056, an emergency supplemental to provide the critically needed 
funding for the humanitarian crisis at the border, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from California has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to remind my colleagues why we are here today. We are 
considering a bill that provides $7.97 billion in humanitarian 
assistance, a 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops, $1.9 billion for 
the Job Corps, $41.1 billion for mental health, for Alzheimer's 
research, HIV/AIDS, cancer research, and others.
  I agree that we need to address the humanitarian situation at the 
border, and Democrats have been saying this for a very long time. We 
said so when crying toddlers were being torn apart from their mother's 
arms. We said so when children were being put in cages. We said so when 
children were being drugged. We said so when children were being 
sexually abused.
  I visited those facilities. I saw the tragedy with my own eyes. HHS 
needs an influx of funds, and we cannot wait until this bill is 
enacted.
  In the coming weeks, we will consider the administration's request 
for a supplemental appropriations bill. That supplemental, not the 
fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill, is the appropriate place to deal 
with this year's ORR funding. That is not just because we can't wait 
for the annual appropriations process to be completed; it is also 
because we have concerns about how ORR is managing some of those 
shelters.

  With all the abuses that have come to light, I know that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with us that we need to 
have more oversight, additional oversight over these facilities.
  Most importantly, this amendment increases and decreases the same 
account. It is not an actual effect. The children deserve more than a 
messaging amendment. They deserve better than that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will amend the 
rule to bring H.R. 3056 immediately to the floor under an open rule.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the 
Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we spent a great deal of time today talking 
about the humanitarian crisis on the border, and that is because, 
despite all of the very positive things that are in this bill that my 
friend from California has mentioned, what is not in this bill is one 
single penny to go to the border today. There is not a Member of this 
institution who does not know that we need that money going to the 
border today.
  I am not talking about contentious issues like border security, 
though that shouldn't be a contentious issue. That should be an issue 
of agreement, as well. I am talking about an issue on which we are 
unanimous, which is taking care of those people who are in the

[[Page H4451]]

custody of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3056 would provide $4.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, as a 
fiscal conservative, I don't say that lightly--$4.5 billion. That is 
not $4.5 billion to get us through another year, Mr. Speaker. That is 
not $4.5 billion to start in October and run us through the next fiscal 
year. That is $4.5 billion today to address needs that exist today, to 
fill shortfalls that are happening today, to solve problems that demand 
solutions today.
  There is not one word in this bill to provide a single solution 
anywhere in America today. But if we defeat the previous question and 
amend the rule as I have suggested, we can provide those solutions 
today, and we can do it in a partnership way that will make America 
proud.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the 
gentleman has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. WOODALL. I would advise my friend that I do not see any speakers 
remaining, and when the gentlewoman has exhausted her speakers, I will 
be prepared to close.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership, and I thank her for the time.
  This is an enormous and important step as it relates to healthcare in 
America. So many of us have been fighting to ensure that the 
preexisting conditions of Americans are protected. I am grateful that 
work has been done to provide $190 billion that covers labor, health 
and human services, and particularly $99 billion that deals with the 
question of Alzheimer's disease, HIV/AIDS, and, certainly, work on 
cancer research. I do want to take note of the fact that TRIO dollars 
have been allowed, as well.
  There is also an important point that is probably prospectively going 
to be covered, but I do want to raise it now, and that is working with 
countries that are our partners or that we would hope that they would 
be partners in the war against terror.
  As the co-chair of the Pakistan Caucus, I want to ensure--and I know 
State, Foreign Ops, Defense is prospectively coming--that I believe 
there has been much work accomplished by the new government and members 
of the expanded Government of Pakistan to work against terror.
  I know that they have lost treasure in the war against terror, and 
that is the Pakistani military. So I would hope that we would find a 
way to ensure that Pakistan receives its foreign aid, as I believe it 
should, and that we provide measuring sticks or standards by which they 
can meet steps of accomplishment, because it is important that we 
create alliances that are strong in the region because of the 
difficulty of the conditions in Afghanistan, the recent loss of life.
  We know that Afghanistan is not at the level of security that we 
would like, and I would hope that we would work with countries in the 
region to ensure the peace and security of the region and the peace and 
security in Afghanistan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about two kinds of issues down here 
today. When I listen to my friend from California talk about all the 
wonderful things that are in the underlying bill, I can't tell you how 
much I wanted to stand up and celebrate with her that appropriations 
season is often that way.
  Mr. Speaker, you haven't seen it in your time, but there was a time 
in this institution where the way we spent America's money reflected 
America's priorities, and it turned out--you wouldn't know it by 
reading the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, but it turned out those priorities 
didn't hinge on whether you had an R or a D behind your name. It didn't 
hinge on whether you came from the Deep South or the Northwest.
  It turned out, when we started voting on issues one dollar at a time, 
we began to find that we had agreements with one another that had not 
yet been explored. We began to find, Mr. Speaker, that we could 
celebrate achievements together in ways that had not yet been explored.
  Mr. Speaker, the year I came to Congress, and many of my other 
colleagues here came that very same year, you may remember the 
appropriations process hadn't been finished by the Democrats. When 
Republicans took over, the young freshman class of which I was a part 
said we need to get down there, and we need to finish that job. It was 
a Tuesday, Mr. Speaker. We brought up the entire Federal discretionary 
budget.
  Now, that is a lousy way to do business. It is a lousy way to do 
business. We used to bring up bills one appropriations bill at a time.
  There are 12 bills, Mr. Speaker. We have gotten in a bad habit of 
omnibus bills. As you know, what we switched to last year and what the 
Democratic majority is continuing this year is bringing up groups of 
four or five bills together.
  But at that time, in the spring of 2011, Mr. Speaker, we brought them 
all up. We brought them all up together. And do you know what we said, 
Mr. Speaker, the brand-new Republican majority?
  You know how it is when majorities change, Mr. Speaker. Folks have 
gotten their feelings hurt. They feel like they were a little wronged 
by the previous majority. My friend from California knows what I am 
talking about.
  You might have expected the Republican majority to say, ``We are 
going to jam our priorities through, diversity of ideas be damned,'' 
but we didn't. It was Speaker John Boehner at that time, Mr. Speaker, 
and he said we are bringing up the entire Federal discretionary budget, 
and any Member, Mr. Speaker, any Member from either side of the aisle 
who has an idea about how to make it better, their ideas are welcome 
here on the floor of the House.
  Oh, you want to talk about a festival of democracy, Mr. Speaker? We 
started on a Tuesday. We thought we were going to be done by a 
Thursday. We ended up going 24 hours a day, finishing in the early 
hours of Saturday morning.
  And by ``finishing,'' Mr. Speaker, I mean we allowed every single 
Member's voice in this body be heard on every single issue that their 
constituents sent them here to address. Every Member of this 
institution left tired, Mr. Speaker, but every Member of this 
institution left feeling like they had had a chance to represent their 
constituents the way the United States Constitution intended.

                              {time}  1415

  It doesn't always work that way, Mr. Speaker. I sit on the Rules 
Committee. We decide what amendments are made in order and what 
amendments aren't.
  In the last Congress, when the Republicans controlled this 
institution, we didn't make every amendment in order. We did not make 
every amendment in order, Mr. Speaker.
  But what we did do is we made more Democratic amendments in order 
than Republican amendments. We did. But because, for obvious reasons, 
when you are in the leadership, it is easier to push your agenda. When 
you have opportunity not to be in the leadership, it is harder to push 
your agenda. We made more Democratic amendments in order last Congress, 
Mr. Speaker, than Republican amendments in an effort to bring a 
diversity of ideas.
  This Congress, Mr. Speaker, when Republicans are in the minority and 
the Democratic majority is writing the rules, 70 percent of all 
amendments that have been made in order have been Democratic 
amendments. Eighteen percent of the amendments have come to 
Republicans. Five times more amendments were given to the majority than 
to the minority. Again, we gave more to the minority than the majority.
  I see my friends from Minnesota down here saying, ``I had an 
amendment. It was a good idea. My constituents asked me to offer it. It 
is germane to the underlying bill. I just want my day on the floor to 
vote.'' That day has been denied, Mr. Speaker, for amendment after 
amendment after amendment after amendment. Hundreds of amendments. Good 
ideas, bipartisan ideas.
  My friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, had an amendment, Mr. Speaker, 
that required that we fund nuclear waste disposal licensing. Nuclear 
waste is

[[Page H4452]]

spread out all across this country. I don't know if it is in your 
district, Mr. Speaker, but I have got it right next door to me. It is 
stored as best we can across the Nation. We are trying to license a 
national repository. We have spent billions as a nation preparing for 
that. All he wanted was a vote on an amendment that has wide and deep 
bipartisan support. I think it would have won, but we will never know 
because the powers that be denied him even the chance to discuss it.
  The question isn't, is there something good in this underlying bill? 
The question is, do you believe any of the rest of us have anything to 
add to make it better?
  My friends made in order some Republican amendments. I told you that 
so far this year there have been five times more Democratic amendments 
made in order than Republican amendments. This bill today is better. It 
is only twice as many Democratic amendments than Republican amendments. 
It is still nowhere close to fair, it is still not representative, but 
this is where we are.
  There is not one dollar, Mr. Speaker, for the humanitarian crisis on 
the border. The New York Times in an editorial on Sunday said, ``The 
financial reality is that this agency is overwhelmed.'' Talking about 
the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
  ``So far this fiscal year, it has taken charge of nearly 41,000 
unaccompanied children, a 57 percent increase over last year. The 
entire program could run out of funding by the end of June.''
  There is not one dollar in this bill for that. That is what my 
colleagues came to ask unanimous consent to do. That is what defeating 
the previous question would do.
  We all agree there is a crisis at the border.
  The editorial goes on for the New York Times, Mr. Speaker.
  ``There should be no ambivalence about the urgency of addressing the 
humanitarian needs. While lawmakers wring their hands and drag their 
feet, tens of thousands of migrant children are suffering.
  ``Congress needs to get serious about dealing with that suffering.''
  There is no bill on its way to the floor, Mr. Speaker, except for the 
one you heard my colleague ask Member after Member after Member for 
unanimous consent to bring. And you heard my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle deny that. I understand. We don't usually get 
unanimous consent requests to prove during Rules Committee debate.
  I don't fault my colleague for objecting. But if we defeat the 
previous question as I am proposing, Mr. Speaker, and we add an 
amendment to the rule, we will continue to consider the bill that my 
friend from California is so proud of. But we will also consider the 
bill that provides immediate funding to the men and women serving us on 
the border as they seek to address this humanitarian crisis.
  It gives me no pleasure to bring it up during Rules Committee debate, 
Mr. Speaker, because I don't think we disagree on this. I think we are 
together on this. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the 
leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle is saying no and no and 
no and no to doing something that they know needs to be done. I do not 
understand it.
  But I know this. Here, on Wednesday, we have got one shot to fix it: 
one. Not two, not three. There aren't a dozen different options. We 
have got one shot to fix it.
  Defeat this previous question, add an amendment to the rule, and 
bring up this emergency funding supplemental. Do what we all know needs 
to be done. If it stretches from the editorial page of the New York 
Times to a conservative Republican from the deep south, Mr. Speaker, 
you know it has broad bipartisan appeal.
  We get so used to saying no in this Chamber. We get so used to 
running each other out in politics. Let's take yes for an answer. Let's 
do something we all know needs to be done. Let's take a shot at doing 
better today than we did yesterday. Maybe we will come back and do 
better still tomorrow.
  Defeat the previous question. Add this amendment to the bill. In the 
absence of that, I will have to ask that we oppose that rule, Mr. 
Speaker, and give us a chance to go back to the drawing board one more 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.

  Mr. Speaker, while we may not agree on everything, I do want to thank 
my colleague from Georgia for his participation in this process. I hope 
we can agree that getting back to regular order is the right thing to 
do, not for Democrats and not for Republicans, but for the American 
people.
  Congress cannot write a blank check and allow children on our 
southern border to continue to be abused while they are in our custody. 
We need transparency, we need accountability. Members of Congress need 
to be able to go and inspect these facilities without being denied 
entry.
  On the issue of participation among Members of Congress through this 
process of appropriations, I want to state once again that ideas are 
absolutely welcome. However, the Appropriations Committee chairwoman 
cannot order Members to participate in the process. We can set up 
meetings and we can invite them to come and participate, and many did. 
They presented their ideas, they presented their requests for funding 
for their districts, and, guess what, 95 percent of those requests were 
agreed upon through a process of mitigating.
  Now, if I was writing this appropriations bill myself, it would look 
very different. If my colleague from Georgia was writing this 
appropriations bill himself, it would look very different. He and I 
both know that. But our commitment is not to our personal agendas. Our 
commitment is to the rule of law, is to democracy, and is to the 
American people, our constituents, who sent us here to represent them.
  The underlying legislation is a strong bill that is the result of 
good, hard work by Members of both sides of the aisle. It is about time 
that the House of Representatives got back to doing the business of the 
people in a timely manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:/n

                  Amendment to House Resolution 436/n

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:/n
       Sec. 5. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, 
     the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House 
     on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3056) to provide supplemental appropriations relating to 
     border security, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the 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 the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during 
     consideration of the bill. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill./n
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3056.

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________