[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 99 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4681-H4685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 431 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2740.
Will the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) kindly take the
chair.
{time} 1450
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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,
with Mr. Van Drew (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today pursuant to House Resolution 431, further proceedings on
amendment No. 87 printed in part B of House Report 116-109 offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) had been postponed.
Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Walker
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 89
printed in part B of House Report 116-109.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 405, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,366,500,000)''.
Page 409, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,930,000,000)''.
Page 410, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,164,867,000)''.
Page 410, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,435,312,000)''.
Page 411, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $92,043,000)''.
Page 412, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
Page 413, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $172,700,000)''.
Page 414, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $101,000,000)''.
Page 414, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $770,334,000)''.
Page 416, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,532,000,000)''.
Page 416, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Page 417, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $425,000,000)''.
Page 418, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $905,000,000)''.
Page 419, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $32,500,000)''.
Page 419, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Walker) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, less than 10 days ago, this body missed a
perfect opportunity. You see, natural disasters are unpredictable, but
you know what isn't? Congress failing to do their job and prepare for
them.
For too long Washington has governed by crisis and shifted its
responsibility to adequately care for those in need, opting instead to
saddle our children and grandchildren with an impossible debt.
Then days ago, this body wanted to spend more than $19 billion with
no consideration of how to pay for it. Was it for a worthy cause?
Absolutely. Of course. I would hope that every dollar appropriated by
Congress is for a worthy cause. But as then-Representative Mike Pence
said in 2005, following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, does
Congress have a duty to ensure that a catastrophe of nature does not
become a catastrophe of debt?
Congress should pay for these emergency packages by either cutting
spending in other areas that are less of a priority or responsibly
budgeting for them ahead of time.
Disaster aid shouldn't be added to the debt. That is akin to going to
the emergency room after an injury, putting the charges on a credit
card, and then pretending that credit card bill is never going to
arrive.
The bottom line is this, that even during an emergency, Washington
needs to pay its bills.
My amendment is relatively simple, Mr. Chair. My amendment would be a
1-year reallocation of the Department of State and USAID's bilateral
economic assistance and independent agency funds to cover the disaster
recovery.
Let me explain. Combined, these accounts amount to more than $23.9
billion and would fully cover the disaster recovery, including the
$5.87 billion in debt servicing costs of the borrowed funds, all while
prioritizing America's recovery and resiliency.
America is still the most philanthropic country in the world and
would continue to be.
Mr. Chair, this amendment recognizes our dire fiscal health by
reducing foreign aid during these times and prioritizing Americans and
American recovery efforts first.
As the President and this administration have said on multiple
occasions, we must prioritize our domestic needs first and put the
American citizens at the front of the line, especially during these
times of disaster relief and especially since we are the ones that will
foot the bill.
With these spending offsets, I believe we can show the American
people we are serious about their recovery from disasters in a fiscally
responsible manner that will not burden our future generations with
debt and despair.
Finally, we can help our neighbors and serve the Americans impacted
by natural disasters by prioritizing our families before foreign
interests.
Congress should take this opportunity to put America first and lead
responsibly.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Rogers and I have worked hard
to craft a bill that provides the necessary tools to the Secretary of
State and USAID Administrator to advance United States foreign policy.
Smart use of global health, humanitarian, and development assistance
supports the United States' interests, builds greater global stability,
and promotes American values.
The gentleman's amendment would, not trim, but entirely cut all these
investments, including support to 14.7 million people receiving
lifesaving HIV treatment, including 700,000 children;
[[Page H4682]]
70 million children learning to read with U.S. assistance; 68.5 million
refugees displaced by conflict or natural disasters; and 7,200 Peace
Corps volunteers serving as excellent representatives of the United
States.
How are these cuts in our national interest?
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple. It is about
prioritizing domestic needs. It is about prioritizing these families
that have suffering. It is about prioritizing these children who are
suffering.
We need to be responsible.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their
hard work in the appropriations process, but nowhere is this spending
disaster relief ever talked about. It is time that we do so.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, our national security is strongest when
development, diplomacy, and defense are equally prioritized.
This amendment undermines United States leadership and diminishes our
engagement in the world.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Palmer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 91
printed in part B of House Report 116-109.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 599, strike line 3 and all that follows through line
17 (and redesignate accordingly).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike the section that
allows payments to go towards the Paris climate agreement. Most
importantly, it would allow President Trump to follow through on his
plan to withdraw from the agreement.
Just a few months ago, it was reported that the U.S. economy exceeded
analysts' predictions and grew at over 3 percent in the first quarter
of this year.
In October of last year, unemployment had a mere 50-year low, and
wages are going up. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
there are 7.4 million jobs available.
Mr. Chair, now those on the other side of the aisle want to put at
risk that growth and enforce policies that will do nothing to stop
climate change.
{time} 1500
What would staying in the agreement lead to?
The Heritage Foundation has modeled the policies that would be
required to meet the Obama administration's Paris commitments and found
that by 2035 there would be an overall loss of nearly 400,000 jobs,
half of which would be in manufacturing, an average total income lost
of more than $20,000 for a family of four, an aggregate GDP loss of
over $2.5 trillion, and an increase in household electricity
expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent.
My amendment would allow the United States to stay out of this
unrealistic and overbearing agreement. I urge the Members to vote
``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALMER. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I rise in support of his amendment.
The Paris Agreement is an unworkable, unrealistic policy solution to
climate change. If implemented, as the gentleman has said, the Paris
accord could cost as many as 2.7 million American jobs by 2025 and
imposes no meaningful obligations on the world's leading polluters like
China and India.
I can't condone dedicating precious Federal funds to a half-baked
solution. This amendment would strike funding provided for implementing
that agreement, as well as language that attempts to prevent President
Trump from withdrawing.
I urge Members to support the gentleman's amendment, and I thank him
for yielding.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our global partners are critical in combating climate change, and the
Paris Agreement is a sign of the global commitment from these countries
to fight this scourge together.
In addition, climate change is a serious national security threat,
and we need to treat it as such by seeking allies, including
multilateral institutions to address it with urgency.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the ranking member on the Select Committee on
the Climate Crisis.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Alabama for yielding. I want to thank him for bringing this
amendment up.
Mr. Chairman, it is really important to make sure we understand what
we are talking about here. The Paris accord was engaged in for the
purpose of benefiting the global environment, for benefiting the global
environment and for reducing emissions, yet what has happened under the
agreement with the pledges that the nations have made is that the
United States, over the last several years, has actually reduced our
emissions by nearly a billion tons. China has actually increased theirs
by 4 billion tons.
This agreement is so disparate it doesn't make sense. The President
was right to withdraw.
But to distinguish, we can stay focused on the targets, the pledges,
but we should not codify, memorialize, agree, or in anyway comply with
this disparate approach where China can continue polluting the
environment.
Mr. Chairman, this is similar to a scenario where I get together with
a group of friends and I say, hey, we are going to have a savings club,
and we are all going to get together, and I am going put money into it,
and they are going come and take money out. That is not a savings club.
That is what is happening.
This is not benefiting the environment. The United States should not
participate, codify, or support this scenario where China is out there
more than increasing by the emissions reductions that the United States
is achieving.
We have had the greatest emissions reductions in the world, greater
than the next 11 countries combined, and we have done it without this
agreement.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rouda).
Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Chair, when are my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle going to give up this toddler argument that we should not take
action to address the number one issue facing humankind, and that is
climate change?
The fact that other countries are not moving as fast as we are is no
reason for us to give up the mantle of leadership and allow the United
States of America to be the only country on the face of the Earth not a
member of the Paris climate accord.
It is time for us to be on the right side of history, and I would
implore the Members on the other side of the aisle to recognize this is
their time to do the right thing, not just for us, but for our
children, our grandchildren, and future generations.
[[Page H4683]]
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that the United
States has led the world in reducing carbon emissions, and I would also
like to point out that even former Secretary of State John Kerry, in
2015, stated, if we somehow eliminated all domestic greenhouse gas
emissions--guess what--it still wouldn't be enough to offset the carbon
pollution coming from the rest of the world.
I would also like to point out that, in a hearing before the Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis, I asked the Democrat witnesses,
including an author and editor of the International Panel on Climate
Change, if the United States completely eliminated all of its carbon
emissions, would it stop climate change, and their answer was it would
not.
We have led the world in reducing carbon emissions without harming
our economy, and it makes no sense scientifically or from an
engineering perspective to engage in destroying our own economy when
the rest of the world and, particularly, China and other emerging
economies are not doing their part to reduce their carbon emissions.
I want to emphasize the fact that eliminating our carbon emissions
will not stop climate change. Sound science, technology, and sound
engineering will do more to mitigate and adapt than anything else you
can do.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, the best and the brightest among us--our
military, our business leaders, our scientists--all agree that climate
change is real and is a serious threat. We are already experiencing its
harmful effects which will continue if we do not act alongside our
multilateral partners. If we want to prepare our country to better
mitigate and manage climate change, then I urge my colleagues to oppose
this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will
be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 92 will not be offered.
The Chair also understands that amendment No. 93 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 94 Offered by Mr. Arrington
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 94
printed in part B of House Report 116-109.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division D (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for contributions to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Arrington) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
H.R. 2740 that would prevent funds from being used to contribute to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Mr. Chairman, at the heart of America's economic prosperity and
unrivaled security is an abundant, affordable supply of domestic
energy, and the lion's share of that, 90 percent, is fossil energy. The
hardworking energy producers of west Texas and the folks in my district
are leading the way.
In the Permian Basin of west Texas, we went from producing a million
barrels of oil a day to 4 million a day, soon to be 8 million in just 3
or 4 years, making it the most active oil and gas producing region in
the world.
The blessings of these natural resources have given us an
overwhelming advantage for economic prosperity as well as national
security. To ensure we continue these advantages for the next
generation, I offer this amendment that would prevent U.S. taxpayer
dollars from going to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, a costly, ineffective, and irresponsible program that
has produced the likes of the Paris climate accord.
The climate activists' agenda, Mr. Chairman, and extreme ideological
views promoted by the Framework Convention embrace the view that the
only means to successfully reduce carbon emissions is to eliminate
conventional fuels, which, by the way, power our Nation's economy,
again, at 90 percent.
This framework is flawed in its assumptions, fraught with political
bias, hostile towards our main source of energy, and amounts to a jobs
program for ideological bureaucrats, and I oppose it and so do the
people of west Texas and most of the people in this country.
And did I mention that we spend billions of dollars to subsidize the
biggest polluters to comply with the mandates from this framework and
completely transition away from conventional energy sources?
America would pay out of the nose to fuel their vehicles and heat
their homes. It would hurt our poor people more than anyone else.
The Paris accord is the most recent product and egregious example of
this framework. At best, the Paris Agreement is political window
dressing. At worst, it is a tax on middle- and working-class families,
with a price tag that, in just 5 years, would amount to $250 billion in
costs to our economy and 2.7 million jobs. Meanwhile, it would have
forced us to subsidize the world's biggest polluters, like India, and
it would give a pass to hostile powers like Russia and China for years.
I believe we have an environmental stewardship responsibility to our
creator and to our children, but we must be responsible to balance
those stewardship responsibilities with our economic and national
security interests.
Here is the irony, Mr. Chairman. The irony is that America is already
leading the way for a cleaner environment, and we are leading by
example, not by words, by flowery words, fancy phrases, big speeches,
fear-mongering. We are leading by example.
And we are doing this not through Big Government solutions, one-size-
fits-all, top-down mandates. We are doing it through innovation and
technology development in partnership with industry, and the results
are remarkable and measurable.
Greenhouse gases are down by 14 percent since `05, the rest of the
world up 20 percent; carbon emissions down 20 percent, the rest of the
world up; methane gas cut in half. Since 1970, all the six key
pollutants in the Clean Air Act, down 73 percent.
And this President is the only one who has put in a legally sound
greenhouse gas emissions standard that will reduce the coal power
plants' emissions by 34 percent of the levels they were at in 2005.
That is progress. Those are real results.
It is reckless and naive to bind taxpayers to international
agreements that compromise our freedom and our economic security and
virtually do nothing to impact the environment. Instead, we should put
forth solutions that encourage the continued development of all energy
sources while setting high but reasonable standards for environmental
quality in human health, and achieve those objectives not in hostility
to the energy source that has blessed us with all the things that I
have mentioned and not through abuse of Presidential powers, but in
partnership with States and other important stakeholders.
I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1515
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, climate change is a global threat that the
United States cannot tackle alone, and the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change convenes multilateral partners working together to
mitigate damage to our globe.
[[Page H4684]]
The United States has been a party to the UNFCCC since 1992, thanks
in large part to the leadership of the George H.W. Bush administration.
As chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, I will not support
efforts that will jeopardize our treaty-based obligations.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rouda).
Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Chair, the gentleman knows the Paris climate accord is
voluntary, so he does not save one job by declining to follow the
protocol that we previously agreed on.
I do agree that there are economic opportunities that we can embrace,
new technologies. I would love to see us work across the aisle to do
just that.
As a former Republican, I used to be in that party because of its
environmental stewardship, because it believed that capitalism could
help solve these problems. I still believe it as a Democrat on this
side of the aisle, and I am hopeful that we can work together.
For example, for every $1 that we provide in economic incentives for
renewable energies, we have provided $80 to the fossil fuel industry.
Clearly, if we had parity, we would see a much faster adoption of clean
energies and the dissemination of clean energies by the existing energy
companies. I can't wait to work with my colleagues across the aisle to
accomplish that outcome.
Ninety-seven percent of scientists recognize that climate change is
real. The Department of Defense recognizes this is one of the top, if
not the number one, national threats to our security.
Let's work together. Let's quit pointing fingers across the aisle and
using rhetoric that does not move forward an important issue that all
of us should be fighting hard to address.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, the United States is a world leader in many
areas, and we need to step up on climate change.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 96 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. Banks
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No 98
printed in part B of House Report 116-109.
Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division D (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. _. Each amount made available in division D, except
those amounts made available to the Department of Defense, is
hereby reduced by 14 percent.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Banks) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chair, my amendment would apply a 14 percent reduction
in the amounts made available for this division. However, it is
important to note that this amendment would not apply to amounts made
available for the Department of Defense and would have no effect on
foreign military financing.
As my colleague highlights, there are worthy programs in this
division to help us build and maintain strong relationships around the
world, but we cannot continue to be a dependable friend to those in
need if we do not put our own fiscal house in order first.
As I mentioned previously, Washington is addicted to spending. Our
national debt today stands at over $22 trillion. We are set here to add
trillions of dollars more in debt every year for the foreseeable future
if we continue down this path of spending without any fiscal
discipline.
We need to act now to prevent a debt crisis that consumes our
children and our grandchildren. Unfortunately, it appears that this is
not a priority for my friends across the aisle.
America needs leadership to solve this problem. That is why I am here
today again proposing that we start by making commonsense reductions to
discretionary spending, like the one that I am proposing today to this
division of H.R. 2740.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, the amendment applies an indiscriminate 14
percent across-the-board cut to all programs, projects, and activities
in the bill, apart from those administered by the Defense Department.
The members of our committee worked hard to craft a bill that
provides the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator the
necessary tools to advance United States economic and security
interests abroad. While we did not agree on every issue, the bill
prioritizes the programs and activities that Members on both sides of
the aisle requested.
For example, under the amendment, global health programs would be cut
by $1.3 billion, including drastic cuts to HIV/AIDS, maternal and child
health, family planning, and infectious disease programs.
Humanitarian assistance, including funds to respond to those
displaced by the crises in Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and South
Sudan, would be cut by $1.5 billion.
Embassy security, which ensures the protection of our diplomatic and
development personnel and facilities overseas, would be cut by $850
million.
Development assistance, which supports basic education, water,
sanitation programs, efforts to combat human and wildlife trafficking,
and global food security activities in the developing world would be
cut by $583 million.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chair, the contrast here couldn't be any clearer. We
have so many young people who are watching us in the gallery today. At
home, I have three daughters who are aged 9, 7, and 6. If we don't do
something about a $22 trillion national debt today, they are going to
be holding the bag for the lack of leadership in this Congress that
they are seeing firsthand with the spend, spend, spend mindset of
politicians in Washington, D.C.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to continue
spending outside of our government's means. What I hear from families
back home in northeast Indiana is if they can live within a budget and
if they can live within their means, why can't Washington, D.C., do the
same?
Hoosiers are used to a State government with a balanced budget every
year, that passes balanced budget after balanced budget and lives
within its means at our State house, as well. Yet, they see exactly the
opposite time and time again in Washington. They see deficits on the
rise. They see the national debt grow at astronomical rates, to over
$22 trillion today.
That is why I am here again today, the second day in a row, offering
an amendment to cut across the board 14 percent without affecting
defense spending or foreign military financing to address our national
security concerns.
Why am I here doing this for the second day in a row? It is because
the Democratic majority has failed the most fundamental leadership test
of all. The majority promised if they got the majority in the last
election, they would pass a budget. They have failed to do that. By
failing to do that, we are here today proposing cuts to discretionary
spending to the tune of 14 percent.
Now, you might ask yourself, why 14 percent? That seems like an
abnormal number to start with. Fourteen percent across the board is
what it is going to take to balance the budget.
I have chaired the Republican Study Committee's spending and budget
task
[[Page H4685]]
force over the past several months. With a group of many of my
colleagues, we worked tirelessly every week to propose a budget of our
own. Right now, it is the only budget in this Congress that has been
proposed. It cuts spending to the tune of trillions of dollars, and it
balances in 6 years.
To get to that balanced budget, it is an across-the-board 14 percent
reduction in nondefense and discretionary spending.
Mr. Chair, I am going to be back. I am going to come back time and
time again, proposing this same amendment for across-the-board cuts of
14 percent because my daughters' generation and the young people who
are watching us in the gallery today are depending on it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to avoid references
to occupants of the gallery.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the
gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will
be postponed.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Rouda) having assumed the chair, Mr. Van Drew, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________