[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.

                          ____________________