[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 25, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5104-H5108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020
General Leave
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 3351.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 460 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3351.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1451
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 consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3351) making appropriations for financial services and general
government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Keating in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Graves) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As chairman of the Financial Services and General Government
Subcommittee, I first want to thank Ranking Member Tom Graves, the
gentleman from Georgia, who I now have had the privilege of working
with for a third year managing the bill. Our discussions have always
been both valuable and productive, and I thank him for his partnership
throughout this process.
Of course, I always like to take the opportunity to thank the staff
on both sides for all the hard work that goes on behind the scenes. In
my personal office, that includes Doug and Juan. On our committee staff
on the majority side, that includes Laura, Marybeth, Elliot, Aalok,
Parker, and Lisa, and for the minority, John Martens.
[[Page H5105]]
The committee staff, in particular, sacrificed many long nights and
weekends to get us to this stage. I am truly grateful, and I know
Members on both sides share the same sentiment.
The bill before us today provides $24.95 billion in total
discretionary resources, including $400 million in adjustments for tax
enforcement program integrity activities.
The FSGG bill encompasses a wide range of programs, everything from
the Internal Revenue Service to the Federal courts to the District of
Columbia to the Small Business Administration.
In total, the bill includes $12 billion for the IRS, an increase of
more than 6 percent above the President's request, a good first step
toward restoring cuts this agency has suffered for almost a decade.
Notably, the bill almost doubles the amount provided in FY19 to the
systems modernization account to support the IRS IT modernization
efforts.
Investing in the IRS will support more effective and efficient
enforcement activities to help close the tax gap, improve taxpayer
experience by reducing wait times, and increase support to those trying
to navigate the complex Tax Code.
My friend across the aisle speaks a lot about deficit reduction, and
as a fiscal moderate, I understand and agree. But underfunding tax
enforcement for all these years has been penny-wise and pound-foolish.
The IRS generates $4 in revenue for every $1 in enforcement expenses.
That is fiscally sound policy that we should all support.
On the national security front, the bill also provides increases
totaling $15.6 million for Treasury Department offices and programs
focused on combating money laundering, enforcing sanctions, and
countering the financing of terrorism.
The bill includes funding for numerous important independent agencies
critical to the operation of the entire Federal Government, as well as
communities throughout the country.
Let me highlight just a few of the many investments provided in this
bill.
One of the top priorities this year has been to help States and local
governments meet the challenge of restoring the security and integrity
of our elections. To this end, the bill includes $600 million in
funding the Election Assistance Commission.
Just last month, Special Counsel Robert Mueller described Russia's
concerted attack on our political system in 2016, saying, ``There were
multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.'' He
detailed the Russian efforts and specified that they were designed and
timed to interfere with and damage a Presidential candidate.
It was a purposeful strategy involving sophisticated cyber techniques
to influence the outcome of our election, the underpinning of American
democracy whereby American citizens alone decide who represents them in
government.
Mr. Mueller concluded with a call to action, that the efforts to
interfere in our election ``deserve the attention of every American.''
I couldn't agree more. This is not a partisan matter. If anything,
the challenge of securing our election systems should unite all
Americans.
Another major priority in this bill has been to support the
regulatory agencies funded in this bill, especially the financial
regulatory agencies that protect consumers, taxpayers, and investors,
and to help police Wall Street and prevent another financial meltdown.
We boost funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission by $148
million above 2019, $104 million above the budget request.
We also provide increases for the Federal Trade Commission to help
refocus on preventing anticompetitive practices and for various
inspector general offices that deal with financial matters.
We give an $8.5 million increase to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to better protect our families from potentially dangerous
products.
The bill also makes targeted investments to make sure that small
businesses on Main Street and low-income communities in too-often
forgotten neighborhoods, both urban and rural, have access to the
capital and assistance needed to thrive.
For instance, this bill increases entrepreneurial development
programs at the Small Business Administration by $34 million above
2019, to $280 million.
Just as significant, this bill rejects the President's proposal to
eliminate grant programs under the Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund, which directly supports the expansion of affordable
housing, small business creation, and infrastructure growth in
underserved and rural areas, in addition to supplying credit to
revitalize neglected communities. Instead, the bill boosts funding by
$50 million for this extremely successful and broadly bipartisan
program.
Ultimately, I am a capitalist who believes in the power of the free
market economy. But I also believe there needs to be reasonable
measures and checks in place to make sure our economy is benefiting
everyone and not just a select few at the top.
If you believe, as I do, that fraudsters shouldn't be able to
manipulate markets and scam seniors of their hard-earned savings, and
that you shouldn't have to be a Fortune 500 company to access
affordable financing for your business, then you should support the
investments this bill makes to empower everyday investors, consumers,
and entrepreneurs.
Finally, the bill takes significant steps toward reducing undue
congressional interference in local D.C. affairs and eliminating
restrictions on the District that do not apply to other parts of the
Nation.
Importantly, it ended the uniquely restrictive prohibition on the use
of locally raised funds for abortion, thereby placing the District in
the same position as the 50 States, in that regard.
It also discontinues the ban on Federal funds for local needle
exchange programs and allows the District to implement local law
legalizing marijuana, as has been done in most States.
In closing, I would like to reiterate how grateful I am to all the
staff who helped put this product together. It is a bill that we all
can be proud of, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today to express some concerns and opposition to the current
bill before us, the Financial Services and General Government
appropriations bill.
First, before I get into some of the highlights of our opposition, I
have been through this process before last year as chairman of this
subcommittee, so I truly understand and am aware of the hard work that
Mr. Quigley and his team have put into this bill, and I commend them
for navigating a process that is not easy and making it to this point
that we are here today.
Now, while I don't support every piece of this bill, I certainly
value the approach that Chairman Quigley took and the strong working
relationship that he and I have both had over the years and continue to
have.
The bill we are addressing includes, I will say, a few key priorities
that have been really important to my Republican colleagues and myself,
and we appreciate that and look forward to supporting those in the
future. And it does strike a bit of a bipartisan tone in a way that I
know that we all appreciate, and our constituents value the most, and,
quite frankly, we could use a little bit more of that around here. And
I know you would agree with that, Mr. Chairman.
Now, while this is a really good starting point, and that is how I
will characterize where we are today, we are at a starting point, a
small foundation that we can build from, the bill, as drafted, is just
not something that I can support at this time, nor my Republican
colleagues, but I would like to highlight some of the areas that I
think we need to work on.
First and foremost, if we were to have a budget agreement--and that
is a big if, because there is a lot of discussion about budget
agreements, but there has certainly not been any movement, and that is
one of the bigger problems the new majority has, is navigating the
budget process, seeing how a budget hasn't even been passed out of
committee.
This bill will continue the spending that our Nation has seen at a
skyrocketing fashion, one that we just
[[Page H5106]]
don't need to accept. The total level of discretionary spending under
this bill increases by 8 percent over last year. That is a significant
number. Last year, when I was chair, we were proposing cutting this
bill by 5 percent, and this year we are 13 points different, going up 8
percent, which is nearly a $2 billion increase.
Secondly, this bill blocks the administration from doing what they
are so focused on right now, and that is securing this Nation and our
country, particularly at the southern border. I am sure we will hear
later this week if the new majority gets the votes to bring a bill to
the floor about a border supplemental, but you have to ask yourself,
why do we even need that supplemental?
We had an opportunity earlier this year with the conference committee
report to provide the funds the administration requested, and yet the
new majority rejected that then, and now comes forward with a
supplemental, but while at the same time, ironically, obstructing the
spending of the administration currently from spending funds to secure
the border through this bill.
So the irony of the failure of the conference committee report, the
inability to get a supplemental to the floor for a vote this week, but
yet refusing to allow the administration to secure the border through
this bill in addition, so it is ironic, and that is something that we
certainly would like to see restored.
But also, this would remove any oversight and accountability that
this body has over the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia is not like a city in any of our States. It
is a district. It is a different entity under a different charter, of
which the greatest Nation on the planet's capital exists, and I believe
we should continue that oversight, but yet this gives the District of
Columbia a blank checkbook here.
Then next I would say, you know, we have talked about bipartisanship.
This bill does omit some longstanding bipartisan provisions that we
have always agreed on, and I am not sure why we would object to them
today, or why the new majority would object to them today, but one, in
particular, is to allow taxpayer funding for the ending of the lives of
the innocent unborn.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know why we would go there today when year
after year after year, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate,
have always come together and said those lives are precious and we
should protect them from the use of taxpayer funds being used to
eliminate their life.
And then I am concerned that the bill as it is currently written
would force schools to withdraw from the Opportunity Scholarship
Program. One of the great successes this body has enjoyed over the
years is celebrating in the success of children of the District of
Columbia benefiting from a scholarship program, to see their lives
improved and enriched and move on into a better future. In fact, the
scholarship program has a great record of success, with 98 percent of
12th grade students participating graduating, a 98 percent graduation
rate. Eighty-six percent of them are accepted to a 2- or 4-year college
after graduation.
We should not be making it harder for these schools to operate. We
shouldn't be making it harder for kids to be able to enjoy this
opportunity. In fact, quite frankly, it is just an assault on the low-
income children right here in the District of Columbia.
It is also disappointing that this bill drops a long-standing
prohibition against requiring contractors to disclose campaign
contributions as a part of the Federal procurement process.
This process should be about getting the best service by the best
company for the best price for the American people, the best to assist
our constituents. Instead, now, if the provision as it is stated in
this bill continues, we might be creating a new higher bidder scenario
in which it is the highest bidder of political contributions going to a
company might get the bid instead of something different, such as the
best price from the best company for the best service.
Now, we all know that these are poison pills that Members of both
sides shouldn't be forced to swallow here today.
As long as this bill is fashioned in this manner, Mr. Chairman, we
know that it is not going to be signed into law. Just yesterday
President Trump said that if this bill were on his desk in this current
form, he would veto this legislation.
So I know we are going to have a robust debate today, and maybe we
can improve upon this foundation, but with the Federal debt exceeding
$22 trillion, we just can't afford to spend more. We don't need to
spend more on general governmental activities. Just because we can
spend it doesn't mean we should, nor should we spend it at any time in
the future when we have the opportunity to cut, and instead, today here
we are spending more.
So it is up to us. Let's set the example, Mr. Chairman. Let's leave
this country's pocketbook in better shape for our kids and our
grandkids.
Mr. Chair, as I close, I do want to finish on a positive note,
because we do have a great working relationship. I want to thank
Chairman Quigley. I want to thank his team. They have addressed some of
the priorities that are important to us, and they have crafted a small
foundation which I know we can all work from in the days ahead.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished chairwoman of the full
committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Quigley for yielding, and I
would like to congratulate Chairman Quigley, Ranking Member Graves, and
the outstanding staff for the bill before us.
House Democrats are fighting to ensure that America is safe, strong,
and moving forward.
The investments in this bill to fund financial regulators and small
businesses improve the financial security of every American. With the
inclusion of funding for election security, we can safeguard our
democracy.
This bill would provide $12 billion for the IRS, including $2.56
billion for taxpayer services, and $290 million for business systems
modernization. These increases are particularly important to secure
sensitive data housed at the IRS.
Small businesses are the foundation of our economy, and this bill
gives them and their employees a better shot at success. A nearly 40
percent increase to the Small Business Administration includes a 14
percent increase for entrepreneurial development programs like Women's
Business Centers.
To combat the attacks on our democracy by foreign powers, the bill
would provide $16.2 million for Election Assistance Commission
operating expenses, a 76 percent increase, and $600 million for
election security grants.
Other important issues would make DACA recipients eligible for
Federal employment and prohibit the use of funds from the Treasury
Forfeiture Fund to construct the President's ill-conceived border wall.
What is not in this bill is also noteworthy, starting with
objectionable riders from previous years that threatened Home Rule for
D.C., such as the ban on D.C. using its own local funds to support
abortion services, needle exchanges, and the legalization of marijuana.
The bill would also eliminate three riders related to the SEC and FEC
aimed at thwarting transparency and disclosures of political
contributions.
This bill would invest in a future that supports the security of our
data and our elections, while setting up our communities, making sure
that our communities succeed.
Mr. Chair, I urge support for the bill.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairwoman,
Mrs. Lowey. She has done a great job this year with the committee, and
she is absolutely right in congratulating Mr. Quigley on his good work
this year.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Granger), our Republican leader of the full Appropriations Committee.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Graves for yielding. I appreciate
the work that he and Chairman Quigley have done to craft a Financial
Services and General Government bill for fiscal year 2020.
The bill includes many priorities of Members on both sides of the
aisle, such as support for small businesses,
[[Page H5107]]
drug control programs, and the Treasury Department's counterterrorism
and financial intelligence efforts.
However, I am concerned that there are several controversial items in
the bill regarding immigration policy, the border wall, collective
bargaining, and many other provisions that will tie this
administration's hands.
Regarding the District of Columbia, this bill fails to provide
appropriate oversight. It is disappointing that the bill does not
include a longstanding pro-life provision regarding the use of D.C.
local funds.
I am also troubled that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
rejected an amendment offered in committee by Dr. Harris that would
prevent the District of Columbia from legalizing solicitation of
prostitution or profiting from the sex work of others.
The possibility of the bill pending before the D.C. Council becoming
law is appalling, and Congress must make it clear that this is
unacceptable. Congress should not allow prostitution to be legalized in
our Nation's capital.
Additionally, the bill includes an 8 percent increase in spending
above the current year. This level of spending is excessive, and as I
have said before, this bill is written using an unrealistic top line
funding level.
In order for our work to be meaningful and produce bills that can be
signed into law, leaders from both parties and the administration must
come together and develop a mutually agreeable funding framework. Then
we can turn to drafting appropriations bills with bipartisan support
that can be signed into law.
In closing, I would like to thank Chairwoman Lowey, Chairman Quigley,
Mr. Graves, as well as all of the subcommittee members and the staff
for their hard work on this bill.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano), the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies Subcommittee and a member of the Financial
Services and General Government Subcommittee.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this bill, the Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act.
Mr. Chair, I want to start by congratulating my good friend and
colleague, Chairman Mike Quigley, for his leadership in bringing our
tenth appropriations bill to the House floor. Speaking from experience,
I know this is no easy task, and I am sure that the relationship
between he and Mr. Graves will have a final product that we can all
vote for.
I am proud that the work that has been accomplished here takes care
of so many issues. This bill provides $24.95 billion to assist elderly
and low-income taxpayers; support our entrepreneurs and grow our small
businesses; ensure the products of our store shelves are safe for
children and families; protect our economy by policing Wall Street;
protect and strengthen the integrity of our election systems; and
provide a 3.1 percent pay raise for Federal employees; and, once again,
empower the District of Columbia to handle its own local affairs.
{time} 1515
The administration has proposed to eliminate the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund, risking the public-private
investments that are generating economic growth in places like my
district in the South Bronx. In response, Congress is investing $300
million for this invaluable program, an increase of $50 million over
fiscal year 2019.
This bill also provides $600 million in Election Assistance
Commission security grants to help State election officials improve the
security and integrity of our elections. Our election systems remain
vulnerable, and additional investments like this can give voters the
peace of mind that, when they cast their ballot, their vote will count
and be counted correctly. As we approach elections this fall in several
States across the country and the Presidential election next year, we
must be ready to combat any attempts to disrupt our democratic
institutions.
The Small Business Administration will receive nearly $1 billion to
continue providing technical assistance and other services our Nation's
businessmen need to help get their business ideas off the ground.
Out of the total amount, $150 million will go to the Small Business
Development Centers Program, $35 million will help provide Microloan
technical assistance, and $30 million will go toward supporting and
investing in women-owned businesses through the Women's Business
Centers. These investments will help create jobs.
Last but not least, this bill once again restores home rule to the
District of Columbia. I cannot think of anything more insulting than
telling any city across our country how they can spend their locally
raised funds or requiring congressional approval to implement laws
their duly elected government officials enact. The intrusive policy
riders the bill removes will ensure D.C. can govern itself without
congressional meddling and address the challenges it faces in serving
its residents.
This is now our 10th bill on the floor. Our Appropriations Committee
is doing the work of the people, and I congratulate, once again, Mr.
Quigley for his work. I stand ready to vote for this with great
enthusiasm.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Serrano's years
of work on the subcommittee as well as his leadership on the Commerce,
Justice, and Science Committee. It has been a joy to work with him and
learn from him over the years. We are going to miss his presence after
this term, as I know he has announced he is not running for reelection.
I now yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx), the Republican leader of the Education and Labor Committee.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from
Georgia for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3351. One of the many
faults of this legislation is language designed to eliminate
educational options for low-income families in the District of
Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, every Member of this body wants all students to receive
an excellent education. That is why Congress authorized the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program in 2004, which provided low-income
students in the District of Columbia the chance to escape public
schools that were not working for them and find a private school that
would meet their educational needs. Congress has reauthorized this
program twice, most recently in 2017.
We know the program works. Just recently, a witness testifying before
the Committee on Education and Labor described her son pursued private
school options through the program in part because he was bullied in
his public elementary school. He ultimately graduated from his private
high school as salutatorian and is now attending the University of
Maryland.
This family's story is not uncommon. A Department of Education study
on the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program found that students
receiving scholarships were 21 percent more likely to graduate high
school than their public school peers.
An Urban Institute study of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship
Program released earlier this year found similar results. Students
participating in that program were more likely to attend and graduate
college than their public school peers.
If we truly believe in improving educational outcomes for students,
supporting educational freedom is something all of us should support.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today seeks to strip these choices
from low-income parents in D.C. under the guise of protecting students'
civil rights.
For example, the language would require private schools to follow
most of the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. On the surface, that sounds like it makes sense, but families of
students with disabilities are exercising their freedom to pursue
private school options because the public school has failed their
child. They believe the private school provides an educational program
that will provide a better outcome for their student. They know that
student better than the Federal Government does. Who are you to take
that choice away?
And to be clear, the system the majority wants to shackle these
families with is failing.
Since 2007, the Department of Education has evaluated States and the
[[Page H5108]]
District of Columbia on their compliance with the requirements of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In every single year since
then, the District's public school system has failed to meet the
requirements of the law.
To put this in plain language, the majority wants to return students
who have found educational choices that work for them to a failing
system. And they are couching this policy in civil rights terms. That
is shameful.
The majority will presumably pass this bill, but I urge the Senate to
reject this attempt to hide a special interest giveaway behind civil
rights language. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee and a member of the Financial Services and General
Government Subcommittee.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
fiscal year 2020 Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act.
The legislation before the House today is vitally important to
ensuring the Federal Government and the U.S. economy can work for the
American people. This bill safeguards our financial system and provides
a fair playing field for our taxpayers. It funds those agencies that
cultivate a vibrant and competitive telecommunications system that
support new businesses and that make sure our consumers are safe from
dangerous and defective products.
Perhaps more importantly, this bill helps protect the integrity of
our elections. As has been illustrated over the last few years, it is
imperative that we provide the States with the resources to ensure the
sanctity of our democratic institution. This bill includes $600 million
in grant funding for election security grants and, additionally, $16.2
million is included for the Election Assistance Commission operating
expenses, an increase of $7 million above the 2019 enacted level.
I am also pleased that this legislation includes a total of $2.6
billion for Taxpayer Services, which provides assistance to the elderly
and low-income taxpayers to help navigate our complex Tax Code, as well
as increases in funding to address the growing tax gap.
Further, the legislation rejects the administration's elimination of
the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, a successful
program that leverages public-private investment to revitalize and
provide jobs to distressed rural and urban communities.
This bill also further embodies our democratic mode of government by
supporting home rule for the District of Columbia.
Finally, I thank Chairman Quigley for rejecting the administration's
misguided plan to merge the GSA and OPM. The GSA manages our Federal
properties, while OPM acts as the chief human resources agency for our
Federal workforce.
The administration's unilateral proposal to merge these two agencies
without any analysis of cost, rationale, or risk would disrupt both
agencies without contributing to their mission. It would potentially
politicize our Federal career employees and create confusion and
bureaucracy for no discernable reason.
To close, I would like to thank full Committee Chairwoman Lowey,
Ranking Member Granger, Subcommittee Chairman Quigley, and Ranking
Member Graves for their work on this bill.
As a member of the House Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Subcommittee, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support this legislation.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Torres of California) having assumed the chair, Mr. Keating, 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.
3055) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________