[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 127 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H3100-H3108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6395, WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY 
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7027, CHILD CARE IS ESSENTIAL ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7327, CHILD CARE FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT; AND 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1957, TAXPAYER 
                           FIRST ACT OF 2019

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1053 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1053

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6395) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
     construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-57 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services; (2) the further 
     amendments described in section 2 of this resolution; (2) the 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution; 
     and (4) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as part of 
     amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this resolution 
     shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, 
     may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent 
     at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the 
     chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to 
     offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 4.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments 
     en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7027) making 
     additional supplemental appropriations for disaster relief 
     requirements for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 116-58 shall be considered as adopted. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. 
     Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during consideration 
     of the bill. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
     thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7327) making 
     additional supplemental appropriations for disaster relief 
     requirements for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply 
     during consideration of the bill. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 7.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1957) 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modernize and 
     improve the Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes, 
     with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the 
     House, without intervention of any point of order, a single 
     motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question.
       Sec. 8.  House Resolution 967, agreed to May 15, 2020 (as 
     amended by House Resolution 1017, agreed to June 25, 2020) is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 4, by striking ``July 31, 2020'' and 
     inserting ``September 21, 2020'';
       (2) in section 11, by striking ``legislative day of July 
     31, 2020'' and inserting ``calendar day of September 20, 
     2020''; and
       (3) in section 12, by striking ``July 31, 2020'' and 
     inserting ``September 21, 2020''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met on Friday and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 1053, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 6395, known as the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, under a structured rule which 
makes in order 407 amendments. The rule provides for en bloc authority 
with en blocs debated for 30 minutes each.
  The rule also provides for consideration of this Senate amendment to 
H.R. 1957, the Great American Outdoors Act.
  The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 7027, the Child 
Care is Essential Act, and H.R. 7327, the Child Care for Economic 
Recovery Act, under closed rules.
  Finally, the rule provides for suspension authority through September 
20, 2020, and recess authority as well as same-day authority through 
September 21, 2020.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commending Chairman Smith and Ranking 
Member Thornberry for their leadership and calming influence that they 
bring to the appropriately named Mac Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. This will be the 60th 
consecutive year that Congress enacts this important legislation, and I 
think it is a direct testament to the hard work and collegiality of 
these two gentlemen.
  The NDAA fulfills our constitutional obligation of protecting our 
Nation by providing our military the tools they need to provide for our 
national defense, confront terrorism, and defend our democratic values 
overseas.
  The legislation also provides essential care for the backbone of 
America's fighting force, our servicemembers and their families. The 
bill includes a 3 percent pay raise for our servicemembers and makes 
key investments in military infrastructure.
  The bill allows our military to maintain readiness, expand 
capabilities, and invest in the software and technologies required to 
secure our country.
  Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected all of us, including 
our military. This NDAA would authorize funding to strengthen the DOD 
and the country's ability to respond to this and future pandemics by 
creating $1 billion pandemic preparedness and resilience national 
security fund.
  H.R. 6395 does all of this while abiding by the budget agreement from 
last

[[Page H3101]]

year and incorporates hundreds and hundreds of bipartisan ideas.
  The Armed Services Committee adopted 475 amendments during their 
markup, and this rule makes in order another 407 amendments for the 
House to consider and work its will. This legislation exemplifies 
exactly how this institution is supposed to work.
  Another bill included in this rule is H.R. 1957, the Great American 
Outdoors Act. Since its creation in 1964, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has protected millions of acres of land across the 
U.S. It has funded national parks like the Rocky Mountain National Park 
in Colorado as well as tens of thousands of State and local park 
projects in all 50 States. LWCF ensures all of us can enjoy fishing, 
hiking, and other outdoor activities and preserve our public lands for 
future generations.
  I have long supported the LWCF, and I was proud to see the LWCF 
permanently reauthorized last year. Now, with H.R. 1957, the House can 
pass the Great American Outdoors Act and make the funding for the LWCF 
permanent.
  As the Trump administration continues to slash protections for our 
public lands and natural resources, it is now more important than ever 
to permanently fund the LWCF. I am glad the Senate has finally acted 
and passed this important bill so we can send this to the President's 
desk for his signature.

                              {time}  1030

  The last two bills addressed in this rule focus on important gaps in 
our economic recovery from COVID-19.
  The Child Care is Essential Act, H.R. 7027, creates a $50 billion 
stabilization fund to help childcare providers which have been 
particularly hard-hit by the pandemic, with over 40 percent of 
providers in danger of closing. Access to childcare is absolutely 
necessary for our economic recovery. This bill will stabilize childcare 
providers so we can ensure parents can get back to work as the States 
reopen.
  But we must also ensure this childcare is affordable for working 
parents hit hard by the economic downturn. That is why our next bill, 
the Child Care for Economic Recovery Act, H.R. 7327, expands and makes 
refundable the childcare tax credit and includes additional resources 
to improve childcare facilities. By filling the gaps to make childcare 
more accessible to working families, this bill helps parents who would 
otherwise reduce their hours or delay reentering the workforce due to 
childcare.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding me the time.
  One of these days, Mr. Speaker, he is going to come down here and he 
is going to leave out that he yields the time for the purposes of 
debate only, and he and I are going to solve most of the ills that 
confront this institution. I think we could do that together. I 
appreciate him, because he is my friend. I appreciate his friendship 
and his yielding me the time today.
  Mr. Speaker, as the first Georgian to take the floor today, I want to 
tell my colleagues, on behalf of the entire Georgia delegation, that we 
appreciate the prayers and the thoughts that you all have been sending, 
not just to Mr. Lewis' family and his staff, but to all of us as well.
  One of my favorite parts of this job, Mr. Speaker, is talking to 
young people. I will speak to any student group that wants to come 
through that will invite me out because I love having an opportunity to 
influence young minds and answer those completely without shame, 
questions that folks ask. But the one thing I have always asked my 
staff to do is not schedule me after   John Lewis has talked to those 
young people, because once   John Lewis has entered a room and had a 
chance with those young minds, anybody else is going to be a distant 
second at best.
  Mr. Lewis has been a leader in Georgia on causes good and right for 
my entire lifetime. In fact, Mr. Lewis was elected to Congress before I 
even graduated from college. Most of the time I spent with him was as a 
staffer on Capitol Hill.
  And I remember after getting elected, he was sitting over to my left, 
as he often was, and I went up and I said: Mr. Lewis, I just want to 
introduce myself. I am   Rob Woodall. I just came in in John Linder's 
seat, and I just am excited to be with you.
  He said: Rob, I know exactly who you are, and please don't call me 
Mr. Lewis. Call me John.
  John would invite the delegation over to his home to visit and talk 
about things--not the things that divide us, but the things that unite 
us. We can't afford to lose the uniters in this institution or in this 
country, and we have lost one in   John Lewis.
  I will have a chance, as part of the Georgia delegation, to recognize 
him more later today. I am grateful to the Speaker for making that time 
available, but please know how much we all appreciate your outreach to 
John's staff and all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, it is fitting, thinking about being a uniter, that we 
are down here talking about the NDAA today. If you will recall, last 
year, when we were doing the NDAA, I had very few nice things to say. 
It had generally been a partnership exercise here, and for myriad 
reasons that both the chairman and the ranking member on Armed Services 
regretted, it became a partisan exercise last year. It came out of 
committee on almost a strictly partisan vote. It came across the floor 
on almost a strictly partisan vote.
  This is a bill that it has not mattered who led the United States 
House or who led the United States Senate or even who was in the White 
House. For 60 years now, each and every year, the Congress comes 
together and we produce a blueprint for our Nation's national security.
  I love that about this bill, and I love that about this institution. 
I love that about what it means for the leadership of the civilian 
government that we get past partisanship every single year.
  And to my Democratic friends' credit, as they lead this institution, 
by the time the NDAA bill got back to the floor after conference, it 
passed on a voice vote here in the House. We had brought ourselves back 
together again.
  This year, Mr. Speaker, it has returned to that partnership bill that 
it has always tried to be. We had the chairman, Mr. Smith, and our 
ranking member, Mr. Thornberry, up in the Rules Committee last Friday, 
and they both attested to that fact: this is not the bill that either 
of them would have drafted, but it is the bill that they have come 
together and passed unanimously out of their committee.
  And, again, to my Democratic colleagues' credit, they have named the 
bill after our ranking member, Mac Thornberry, to recognize his 
lifetime of service to our men and women in uniform.
  That is the kind of thing that doesn't get a lot of publicity back 
home. Folks aren't going to sit around and celebrate that, but it is a 
big deal that Republicans are in the minority on Capitol Hill, but that 
leadership in service to others, as Mac Thornberry has done for our men 
and women in uniform, doesn't have a partisan label on it; and our 
Democratic colleagues have seen fit to honor him in this way, and I am 
grateful to them for that.
  We have a lot of amendments here, as you have heard already, Mr. 
Speaker, and I wish that we had been able to do this in two separate 
rules so that we could have come together and supported NDAA and then 
had our differences on the other measures that are also included in 
this rule.

  Coming out of Coca-Cola country, it would be okay with me if the 
grocery stores decided that, in this time of pandemic, they only had 
time to just stock the Coca-Cola on the shelves and they weren't going 
to make time to stock the Pepsi because it was just too dangerous and 
not enough time to make that happen. But they haven't. They have 
decided they are going to put it all on the shelves, and they are going 
to try to get back to normal. We have got to try to get back to normal, 
too.
  I know my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, is on the 
floor today, and he has got a lot of responsibility on his shoulders. 
We have gotten into the habit, during this pandemic, of putting a lot 
more things in a single rule than we used to do. I am hoping that we 
will start to swing that pendulum back as we all grapple collectively 
to get to a new normal because, besides the National Defense 
Authorization Act, we have got a lands bill

[[Page H3102]]

here today. It came to us from the Senate. I understand my friends 
don't want to amend it because it has come to us from the Senate. I 
would like to put the House stamp of approval on it. I would like to 
put some House improvements on it.
  We had an opportunity in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. This lands 
bill is exactly as my friend from Colorado described. It provides a new 
funding stream, a mandatory funding stream for land acquisition through 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a fund that I support, funding 
that I have supported.
  But we have a maintenance backlog on our Federal lands, and this year 
we are not going to have the resources to fund those maintenance 
backlogs at our normal paltry level, much less at the elevated level 
that they need to occur, and this bill is going to exacerbate that 
problem. Rather than funding a maintenance backlog, it is going to 
purchase more land that we don't have enough money to maintain already.
  We had an opportunity to massage that around to make sure that we 
were funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund and we were also 
providing the stewardship to those lands that the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has already acquired. We didn't have a chance to do 
that in the Rules Committee.
  We are going to have a previous question opportunity, when we defeat 
the previous question, to come back and further improve this lands 
bill. I hope that my colleagues will give us that opportunity. I 
appreciate that the Senate has sent us this language, but I do believe 
we can improve it before we send it to the President's desk.
  And then, finally, we have bills that again, with the best of 
intentions, affect our Nation's childcare system. It is absolutely, 
positively true that we cannot get our parents back to work if we can't 
get our children back into the classroom or back into the childcare 
center. We must make all of these things work in concert together.
  These bills are coming to us under an emergency designation. I sit on 
the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, and what that means is the normal 
rules don't apply.
  Childcare has been a challenge in this country, not just during the 
pandemic, but for decades. It is an issue that is worthy of this 
Congress' attention. It is also worthy of getting it done right, 
because we can only spend each dollar once. Once that dollar is gone, 
if we don't spend it efficiently, we are not going to be able to serve 
children as well as we would like to. We are not going to be able to 
serve parents as well as we would like to. These childcare provisions 
did not go through a process that gave us an opportunity to 
participate.
  Both bills that were testified on before the Rules Committee had 
Budget Committee referrals. The Budget Committee has been meeting, but 
we have not had one word of conversation about these priorities. That 
does not produce the best product.
  Again, it may be done with the best of intentions, but it cannot 
possibly produce the best product to ignore committees of jurisdiction 
and to ignore disparate voices as we are all grappling with childcare 
challenges back in our district, COVID-related challenges back in our 
district.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as you take time today and, hopefully, for many days 
into the future to celebrate the difference-making that   John Lewis 
did--not just for my community, not just for my State, not just for our 
country, I would argue he made a difference on the global stage--take a 
moment to celebrate that, for all the partisan headlines that are in 
the news, there is a lot of good partnership, collaborative give-and-
take going on behind the scenes to try to make the world a better 
place, to try to make American policy better policy.
  I hope my colleagues will support the NDAA bill when it gets to the 
floor of this House after this very aggressive amendment process, and I 
do hope my colleagues will defeat this rule so that we can separate the 
NDAA from these items that require much more of the House's attention, 
and then we can rush those to the floor as soon as we have had an 
opportunity to perfect those, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to say first to my friend, Mr. Woodall, I would never neglect 
to provide you with the 30 minutes because I honestly enjoy watching 
your gestures and listening to your arguments. Often we disagree, but 
the way you present things is really something that I enjoy listening 
to and watching.
  And I couldn't agree with you more about what you said about John 
Lewis. Now, John was not very big--about my size--but his personality, 
his commitment, and his intellect would fill this Chamber whenever he 
spoke, whenever he came in. So our loss is big with his passing, and I 
just want to thank the gentleman for the remarks he made about Mr. 
Lewis.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman, from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), the chair of the Rules Committee.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Perlmutter, for yielding me the time.
  I also want to associate myself with the comments of all my 
colleagues who have remembered our dear friend   John Lewis, the 
conscience of the Congress, indeed, the conscience of the country.   
John Lewis was a man of action who never gave up on fighting for a more 
just, fair, and decent country, and I think all of us can pay tribute 
to him not just with words but with actions.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good ideas being considered as part 
of this debate. There will be a lot of debate over the next couple of 
days, but I want to discuss one in particular here today, an amendment 
by my colleagues Mark Pocan and Barbara Lee.
  Because of their leadership, Congress will finally vote on whether to 
cut the Pentagon's bloated budget and reinvest that money in the 
American people here at home. All I can say is: It is about damn time.
  COVID-19 has laid bare our Nation's failure to invest in programs 
that support our families and keep them healthy, but this debate was 
needed long before this pandemic hit because, for years and years, we 
have been told there simply isn't enough money to invest in our 
communities, in universal childcare, Medicare for All, or repairing our 
crumbling infrastructure.
  We have been told that a Green New Deal is too expensive and that it 
is unreasonable to ask to cancel crushing student loan debt. But there 
is always enough money lying around to raise the Pentagon's budget. 
Decade after decade after decade, we shortchanged the American people 
while we shoveled more money into building more nukes or more military 
bases halfway around the world.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of it. This amendment is the least--
and I mean the least--we can do. Since the start of the Trump 
administration, in just the last 3 years, our defense spending has gone 
up every single year, over $100 billion in total. That is crazy.
  Now, don't misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. I support our troops. This 
amendment exempts from cuts military personnel, defense healthcare, and 
our Federal civilian workforce. But I do not support military spending 
so wasteful that it weakens our Nation; I don't support Congress 
funding weapons our troops don't want; and I don't support Congress 
funding forever wars that our country shouldn't even be involved in.
  For me, this all boils down to a simple question, Mr. Speaker: What 
do we mean by ``national security''?
  Now, some here in Washington think our national security ought to be 
measured solely by the number of bombs we have, but those of us who 
support this amendment think our national security must also be 
measured by the prosperity of our people, by whether our families have 
enough money to buy groceries, and whether we are investing in our 
schools and our libraries and our roads and all the things that 
strengthen our communities.
  If we continue failing to invest in our people, what kind of country 
will be left for our military to defend 20, 40, 60 years down the road? 
What will we tell our children and their children when our military 
budget continues to balloon, yet our citizens cannot afford even the 
most basic necessities?

[[Page H3103]]

  Budgets, Mr. Speaker, are moral documents. They represent our values, 
what we think is important. It is time for America to do the right 
thing and fundamentally alter our national priorities. That is what 
this proposal is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. There will be 
lots of debate on lots of subjects, but I urge them to support this 
amendment when it comes up for a vote.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the heart of which my chairman speaks. I believe 
it is wrongheaded to craft a military budget and then figure out what 
kind of mission that budget can support.
  I think the question is what are we asking of our men and women in 
uniform, what is the mission, and then let's commit to funding that 
mission in a full-throated way.
  We had an opportunity in this bill to vote on what the definition of 
the mission is, whether or not we were going to allow the Authorization 
for Use of Military Force from 2001 to continue to perpetuate the 
forever wars that my friend who chairs the Rules Committee mentioned. 
We are not going to have an opportunity to vote on that today, and I 
regret that, as I know the chairman does.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that we are hoping to have an opportunity to 
discuss that in the future in a more full-throated way, but I would 
urge my colleagues--and I sit on the Budget Committee--please don't 
craft a budget and figure out then what you can ask our men and women 
in uniform to do. Figure out what it is you are asking our men and 
women in uniform to do, and then fund that to the best of our 
abilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall), my good friend, for yielding. I thank him for his very 
eloquent remarks about our departed colleague,   John Lewis, as well. 
It was very appropriately done.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule brings just a very mixed bag before the 
Congress of the United States. It covers four different bills. Two of 
those bills, quite frankly, shouldn't be on this floor at all. The 
Democrats actually broke their own rules in bringing those bills, the 
two bills dealing with childcare.
  It is not that the subject isn't important. It is extraordinarily 
important. That is why it should have gone through the committee 
process and been marked up. Probably since this deals with COVID-19, it 
is more appropriately dealt with in what I hope will be another 
supplemental, but these bills simply aren't ready for the floor.
  The other bill, which my friend referred to at length, the lands bill 
out of the Senate, is a good bill. Now, I would have preferred, as my 
friend would, that we would have put some other amendments there, some 
that our good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Bishop of Utah, brought 
forward. I think we could have made it more prudent and had a better 
chance of having a sustaining bill.
  But getting that authorization done is a rare opportunity this late 
in the cycle in a divisive year, and I don't want to miss that 
opportunity. We can come back later and try and make it better, but I 
certainly intend to support that legislation. It is an important step 
forward in our environment.
  I am going to reserve most of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, for the NDAA. 
And I, too, like everybody up here, want to thank our colleagues, the 
chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Smith and Mr. Thornberry, for 
working together so well and bringing us a really well-crafted product.
  That bill came out of committee 56-0. There weren't a lot of 
amendments. There were 600-odd amendments in the committee, another 
700, I guess, that we are going to deal with here on the floor. So this 
has been working, but the point is they found a way to come together.
  Now, we as a House are going to have an opportunity to make their 
work even better or, frankly, make it worse. I hope we choose the 
latter.
  I am going to disagree very respectfully with my good friend, the 
chairman of the Rules Committee. We don't overfund defense. As a matter 
of fact, if you look at it historically, in 1960, the height of the 
Cold War, we spent 9 percent of our gross national product on defense 
and 50 percent of the Federal budget. That fell to a third of the 
Federal budget and 6 percent under Ronald Reagan in a great defense 
buildup. It fell to 3\1/2\ percent under President Clinton. It is down 
to between 3\1/2\ and less than 4 percent today.

  So we don't overspend. And we have dangerous adversaries overseas 
that are modernizing rapidly--certainly, the Chinese are; certainly, 
the Russians are--and making enormous investments. So I think it would 
be a huge mistake to adopt the amendment that my friend intends to 
support; although, again, that is what we have these debates for.
  It is important to remember that, in the world we live, when it comes 
to military power, first place is the only safe place. This bill will 
keep the United States where it belongs: preeminently in first place.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, again, my friend and 
thank everybody here for their remarks about Representative Lewis, a 
giant amongst all of us. He will be sorely missed. His voice would have 
been a wonderful voice today.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Perlmutter for yielding me the 
time.
  I am proud to rise in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation. I believe that each of the underlying bills that we 
consider in this rule will benefit not only people across the country 
but, in particular, residents of Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional 
District in a meaningful and tangible way.
  The NDAA provides a 3 percent pay increase for our servicemembers and 
their families, expands paid family leave, and makes long-overdue 
changes in how the Department of Defense addresses the needs of 
servicewomen.
  The NDAA also makes necessary investments in our ability to handle 
future deadly infectious diseases and key investments in military 
infrastructure to support our troops overseas, but for the residents of 
my district, the benefits go even further.
  More than 4,600 people in my region are proudly employed in building 
the Chinook helicopter, our country's premier heavy-lift aircraft, as 
well as the Osprey, one of the Navy's most innovative and invaluable 
assets. Our neighbors who build these incredible aircraft are immensely 
proud of both their record of producing these aircraft on time and on 
budget and their craftsmanship, which correctly supports our national 
security around the world. I am proud to continue our region's 
bipartisan tradition of Federal support for this critical program.
  This bill is also important to the brave Federal firefighters in our 
region who protect some of our country's most valuable assets.
  Two of the first people who visited my office after I was sworn in 
were firefighters Joe Love and Brian Collison. They told me that they 
love their jobs, but the schedule imposed on firefighters in our region 
was unworkable, leading to low morale, high rates of divorce, high 
requests to transfer to other stations, and difficulty filling 
vacancies. I have worked with my friend and colleague Congressman  Don 
Norcross to secure language in this bill that will allow our local 
Federal firefighters to adopt the alternative work schedule already 
being used by the vast majority of their peers across the country.
  Today's rule also provides for the Great American Outdoors Act, which 
the House will send to the President's desk this week. This bill 
benefits every region of the country by permanently funding the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund and investing heavily in the maintenance 
backlog at our national parks, both of which are important to our 
regional economy.
  I regularly visit many of the special places in Pennsylvania's Fifth 
District that will directly benefit from this legislation, including 
the Heinz Wildlife Refuge and Bartram's Garden.

[[Page H3104]]

  Funding for the LWCF does not come from taxpayer dollars. It relies 
on offshore drilling royalties. For every million dollars invested, the 
program supports 16 to 30 jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the Members who worked so hard on 
crafting these critical bills.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise with concerns about the troubling 
pattern of legislating national chemical policy based upon emotions 
rather than scientific fact, including in this NDAA. I am referring 
specifically to certain anti-science, anti-practicality, and 
potentially anti-soldier provisions involving this bill related to per- 
and polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS.
  PFAS is not one well-known substance; it is actually a class of 
thousands of different chemicals of which we know very little about. 
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there is no precise, 
clear definition of what constitutes a PFAS substance, with the lowest 
total of several estimates of PFAS encompassing more than 5,000 
substances.
  The dots on this chart represent the scope of 5,070 substances 
identified on the Environmental Protection Agency's current PFAS master 
list. The 29 dots that are highlighted represent those individual PFAS 
for which EPA has a reliable scientific method to test their presence 
in drinking water. Finally, the two red dots are the only two that we 
think are problematic to human health, and that is PFOA and PFOS.
  Some of the uses of specific PFAS chemicals the Federal Food and Drug 
Administration has approved for use: heart stents, in this case, for 
patients suffering from artery blockage; and occluders for infants 
suffering from the congenital heart condition known as an atrial septal 
defect, which plugs a hole in the heart.
  I don't have a poster for the next chart on health, but 40 new 
fluorine-containing drugs were introduced to the market from 2001 to 
2011, including those that treat cancer, respiratory illnesses, 
cardiovascular conditions, and infectious diseases.
  Regardless, section 331 of this NDAA prohibits DOD from buying any 
personal care items, dental floss, or sunscreen that carries PFAS. This 
doesn't mean just the two PFAS we know about; it means the thousands 
for which we know nothing. This includes any safer alternative product 
with a different PFAS.
  We should know what this means for our troops sitting in the desert 
Sun in far-off places before Congress summarily takes these products 
away, some of which have already been approved for use by other Federal 
agencies.
  Separately, section 332 of this NDAA requires certain DOD PFAS 
cleanups under the Superfund to use the strictest standards, nullifying 
Superfund, which relies on cleanups ``assuring'' protection of human 
health and the environment and being ``relevant and appropriate under 
the circumstances.'' In other words, for only DOD, section 332 in this 
NDAA disregards site characteristics; prevents more practical, 
protective cleanups; and focuses only on being more stringent. This 
kind of policymaking is punitive; it is wasteful; and it is 
unscientific.
  Later we will debate the Delgado amendment, which some suggest is a 
technical fix to the Toxic Release Inventory language Congress added in 
NDAA 2020. This amendment, however, is not a technical fix, and it 
raises serious policy questions that regular order would have done a 
much better job of settling.
  Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way, with Congress playing 
scientist. EPA has been working diligently to understand the health 
effects of the seven most common PFAS while simultaneously 
investigating the hazards of another five.
  EPA also just released the Toxic Release Inventory mandates for 172 
PFAS and is finalizing a Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory 
determination, is completing regulation preventing market access for 
long-chain PFAS, and is evaluating the need for Clean Air Act and 
Superfund regulation of certain PFAS.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope conference negotiation will remove these 
troublesome provisions, or at least significantly modify them to align 
with the realities of our fighting men and women, their needs in the 
field, and not arbitrarily restrict things based upon anxiety and the 
lack of science.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I inquire how much time remains on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) 
has 16 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) has 
11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ruiz).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, as we stand here right now, our brave men and 
women overseas and our returning veterans continue to suffer the 
horrific health effects of their exposure to toxic burn pits.
  Burn pits are fields where tons of waste like jet fuel, plastics, and 
medical waste were burned right next to military bases, exposing 
servicemembers to an array of toxic pollutants, particulate matter, and 
known carcinogens like dioxin.
  For too long, servicemembers have inhaled black fumes from burn pits. 
To make matters worse, their symptoms, like subtle shortness of breath 
that progresses, headaches, or dry cough, have been dismissed.
  As a physician, I know these symptoms can signal serious health 
conditions, like severe pulmonary diseases, chronic fibrosis, chronic 
bronchiolitis, and others.
  For years, the Department of Defense has been dismissing the serious 
health effects of burn pits, hiding behind promises about ``ongoing 
studies.'' Promises about studies are not enough. It is time to act.
  Our heroes cannot afford to wait. That is why we must pass four of my 
bipartisan bills included as amendments to the NDAA.
  First, H.R. 7596, the DOD Burn Pits Health Provider Training Act, 
will require DOD to implement mandatory training for all their medical 
providers on the potential health effects of exposure to open-air burn 
pits. No longer can we allow symptoms of burn pit exposure to be 
dismissed.
  Second, H.R. 7597, the DOD Burn Pits Research Status Act, will 
require DOD to report to Congress on the status and timeline for 
completion of all ongoing studies conducted or funded by DOD related to 
the health effects of burn pits.
  Third, H.R. 7598, the Post-Deployment Burn Pit Question Act, will 
require DOD to include a question about burn pit exposure in the post-
deployment health assessment form to increase reporting of burn pit 
exposure.
  Fourth, H.R. 7600, the Burn Pit Registry Expansion Act, will require 
DOD and VA to expand the burn pits registry to include Egypt and Syria.
  In order to comprehensively address the military's use of burn pits, 
prevent exposure, and improve timely care for servicemembers, we must 
find alternatives to burn pits usage, educate military healthcare 
providers about the variety of illnesses due to toxic burn pit 
exposures, expand the burn pits registry, and understand gaps in 
scientific research.
  Toxic burn pit exposure continues to threaten the health of 
servicemembers. Many servicemembers and veterans continue to become 
severely sick, permanently disabled, or die from respiratory failure, 
cancers, or autoimmune or other diseases due to toxic burn pits 
exposure. This is an urgent problem that must be addressed right now.
  My 2020 burn pits bill package will help bring us closer to providing 
the attention that this DOD self-inflicted public health crisis 
requires: identify at-risk servicemembers and give them the timely care 
they need, and end the use of military toxic burn pits once and for 
all.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and 
ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee for including my 
legislation in the NDAA for 2021. I would also like to thank my good 
friend from Maine, Congressman Jared Golden, for introducing the 
legislation with me

[[Page H3105]]

and championing its amendment during markup.
  My bill holds Federal agencies accountable for paying businesses for 
work already performed due to contract modifications made by Federal 
agency clients.
  As ranking member of the House Committee on Small Business' 
Subcommittee on Contracting and Infrastructure, I think it is important 
to speak up for the small businesses that support the Federal 
Government and procurement marketplace.
  When small businesses work with the Federal Government, they choose 
to do so risking their livelihoods on the promise that they will be 
paid for the work that they have agreed to perform. Access to steady 
and stable cash flow is the lifeblood of a small business, and they 
trust that they will be paid timely and fairly each and every time they 
sign on the dotted line.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not been holding up their 
end of that bargain, particularly when it comes to contract 
modifications or change orders issued unilaterally by an agency on 
Federal construction projects. These delays in the approval and payment 
of change orders have a disproportionate impact on small construction 
contractors.
  My legislation provides a measure of financial stability to our small 
contractors by requiring the government to pay for at least half of the 
work the small business has completed, at the time an invoice is 
submitted, pursuant to the change order work requested by the agency.
  This will ensure that our small businesses obtain at least some fair 
and timely compensation for the work performed, without having to wait 
for the change order payment approval to work its way through miles of 
government red tape and bureaucracy. This legislation holds agencies 
accountable for the changed work they request, which is simply the 
right thing to do.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for including this 
legislation in the NDAA.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to take a moment to speak about two amendments this rule makes 
in order that I have offered which are focused on the health and 
environmental safety for those willing to put their lives on the line 
for our country--first, for former nuclear weapons workers, and, 
second, for our firefighters.
  My first amendment affirms Congress' commitment to the success of the 
Department of Labor's Office of the Ombudsman for former nuclear 
weapons workers.

  Over 600,000 Americans worked on our Nation's nuclear weapons in the 
20th century, including at the former Rocky Flats Plant in my district, 
which produced the plutonium triggers for many of our nuclear weapons. 
Many of these workers were exposed to toxic substances and chemicals 
and, as a result, developed terrible and often terminal illnesses.
  Congress created the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program, or EEOICPA for short, which is not very short, to 
provide compensation and healthcare to these workers under the fiscal 
year 2001 NDAA. Unfortunately, the illness compensation program has 
been troubled for years, preventing workers from successfully 
submitting their claims and assessing their hard-earned benefits.
  The Office of the Ombudsman serves as an important resource for 
claimants, helping them navigate the complicated claims process. 
Unfortunately, this office sunsets this October.
  As we work to find a path forward on long-term funding, my amendment, 
which is cosponsored by Representative   Joe Wilson and you, Mr. 
Speaker, reinforces the importance of the ombudsman to these nuclear 
weapons workers and to the EEOICPA program.
  My second amendment requires the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, NIST, to work in cooperation with the National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health to study the effects of PFAS--we 
heard Mr. Shimkus discussing that earlier--on the health and well-being 
of our firefighters.
  PFAS chemicals are found in the protective gear firefighters wear, 
making it more water- and oil-resistant, so beneficial kinds of 
effects. But we know PFAS exposure can lead to an increased risk of 
cancer, which is already the leading cause of death among firefighters.
  My amendment, which is cosponsored by Representatives Bill Posey,  
Dan Kildee, Brian Fitzpatrick, Madeleine Dean, and Harley Rouda, would 
evaluate the use of PFAS chemicals in firefighting equipment and make 
recommendations on improvements to this gear to avoid unnecessary 
exposure to PFAS chemicals.
  We owe it to our brave firefighters who put their lives on the line 
every day to minimize their exposure to these dangerous chemicals.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support these amendments, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that if we defeated the previous 
question today that we would have an opportunity to add some additional 
language to the lands bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment I am about to discuss in the Congressional Record immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, when we have a natural disaster on our 
public lands, we have an opportunity, right after that disaster, to go 
in and salvage some of the timber that has fallen, some of the timber 
that has been affected. But there is a clock on how long we have to get 
that done, and so many of the processes that are in place normally, to 
seek approval for harvesting timber on public lands, remain in place in 
these natural disasters, in these times of crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will add an 
amendment to the rule to make in order a discussion on creating a 
categorical exclusion for salvage operations.
  Now, I know there are differences between Department of the Interior 
lands and Department of Agriculture lands. Former Governor of the great 
State of Georgia Sonny Perdue, now the Secretary of Agriculture, the 
lands that he is in charge of are not lands designed to be preserved; 
they are lands designed to be managed. It is an agricultural product 
that is supposed to produce timber for the American people.
  Even though it is a catastrophe that damages that timber, that 
encroaches upon the productivity of those lands, an opportunity to 
salvage what little may be available to be salvaged should be one that 
we avail ourselves of or, at the very least, should be a topic of 
discussion today.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to help me to defeat the 
previous question. Let's add this amendment to the rule.
  As I mentioned earlier, we already have everything and the kitchen 
sink in this rule already. One more section 7 isn't going to 
disadvantage us or slow us down more than a single hour, and we will be 
able to have this very important conversation about maximizing the 
asset that the American people have entrusted us to manage and to 
protect.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume just briefly. I am prepared to close, I would say to my friend 
from Georgia.
  The rule that we presented today does span a number of bills. The 
reason we are putting them all together is because time is of the 
essence, and there is no reason to delay any further in presenting 
these particular bills to the vote of the Congress.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to again thank my friend from Colorado, both for his 
partnership on the Rules Committee and his courtesy here on the floor 
today.
  I understand the urgency about which he just spoke. I offered an

[[Page H3106]]

amendment in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, that we withdraw what 
they call martial law. That is the ability for the House to move with 
great haste.
  The House rules require that we pace ourselves so that the body has 
an opportunity to review the rules that the Rules Committee produces, 
the legislation that comes out of committees. We have these timelines 
in place.
  Since the COVID crisis began, over 100 days ago, we have been 
operating under what they call martial law, where the Speaker, in his 
or her wisdom, can do almost anything with great haste on the floor of 
the House. Both parties do that in times of crisis so that the House 
can be responsive in the way that my friend from Colorado has 
discussed.

                              {time}  1115

  There comes a time, however, Mr. Speaker, when we need to recognize 
that if we have been sacrificing efficacy in the name of efficiency, 
that might have been the right answer on day one of the crisis and that 
might have been the right answer on day 30, maybe even day 60, maybe 
even day 90, but there is going to come a time in the same way that we 
have asked our food service personnel, our sanitation personnel, our 
law enforcement personnel, and our first responder personnel--you go 
right down the list of folks doing critical jobs in America. We are not 
asking them to shortcut those jobs. We are asking them to perform those 
jobs to the very best of their abilities.
  We can do better here.
  Now, my friend from Colorado mentioned that we stuff these things all 
into a single provision, and it does save us 1 hour of additional 
debate. It does save us 1 hour.
  Now, in the grand scheme of things, I might say having a more 
deliberative process would be worth 60 minutes of this body's time. We 
didn't have our first day of session in June until the very last week 
of June, so I think we could find the time. But that is not really my 
biggest concern.
  My biggest concern, as the ranking member of the Rules Committee 
mentioned, is the bills that have been stuffed into this bill that 
haven't been the product of regular order. And I don't mean regular 
order where we have to talk about everything and delay it ad infinitum. 
I am talking about regular order where thoughtful, serious legislators 
actually have a chance to make a difference and things aren't written 
by a select few in leadership behind closed doors.
  In a crisis, leaders have to lead. And I don't fault the majority for 
circling the wagons and doing what they needed to do to respond in the 
way that they thought was appropriate. I might have disagreed with 
them, but they have a responsibility and an obligation to lead.
  We are entering a time, Mr. Speaker, where we need to recognize that 
we are the deliberative body. This is where the American people come to 
have their voices heard, and we must open up the process so that that 
can happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that we did a pretty good job on the 
National Defense Authorization Act. Again, it passed out of committee 
56-0. That is not because everybody agreed. That is not what happens in 
legislating. It is that everybody came to a place where they were 
comfortable and they did the negotiating they had to do to satisfy that 
higher priority of defining America's national security needs and 
goals.
  I have the list of amendments that have been made in order by this 
bill, Mr. Speaker. You can see the list of bipartisan amendments. I 
feel pretty good about that. There are a lot of numbers you see on this 
page, bipartisan amendments that are going to be made in order in the 
National Defense Authorization Act. There are almost as many--in fact, 
as many as the Democratic amendments that were made in order under this 
rule. You see that is a lot of Democratic amendments that were made in 
order, too, and I am glad we had bipartisan, and I am glad the majority 
was able to continue to improve upon what they have done.
  This is the list of Republican amendments that have been made in 
order. It is not a screen tear, Mr. Speaker. It is just that this is 
only how many there are. We in the Republican majority, 2017 when I had 
an opportunity to lead a subcommittee there and 2018, we would make 
more Democratic amendments in order than Republican amendments because 
Republicans were leading, so, by definition, fewer Democratic voices 
could be included in the regular process. We weren't able to do that 
today, and I regret that.
  But I want to recognize, because I think it is important to 
recognize, Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of constructive counsel for my 
friends on the other side of the aisle about how they can do better, 
and any time they want to come to me and partner with me on that 
leadership, I am available to them to do that. I don't think we are 
going to get to where I want to go by the end of this Democratic 
majority, and I think when the Republican majority takes over in 
January, that is going to be my opportunity to get us back to where I 
want us to be.
  But this bill, this National Defense Authorization Act, this 
bipartisan work product, this collaborative effort to support our men 
and women in uniform, as my ranking member mentioned, can be improved 
on the floor of this House or that partnership can be destroyed on the 
floor of this House.
  The leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle on the Rules 
Committee has a very difficult job trying to find those amendments that 
can help to improve the bill without destroying the bill, and I want to 
recognize the real sweat equity that folks put in to trying to keep the 
poison pills away and trying to find those ideas that needed to be 
discussed and not to destroy our partnership.
  Let's support this National Defense Authorization Act, Mr. Speaker. 
Let's defeat this rule but support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to begin with responding to my 
friend's, Mr. Woodall's, concerns about the numbers of amendments, what 
the percentages are and all that stuff.
  We have authorized and made in order 407 amendments to be debated on 
the floor of this House. That is after some 475 amendments were debated 
in the Committee on Armed Services. Of the ones that we have today, 
let's see, 53 percent are bipartisan or Republican, and 46 percent are 
Democratic amendments. So, among all of these amendments, there is 
plenty of opportunity for all of us to have some say as to how the NDAA 
is going to be shaped for this coming year.
  The second thing that the gentleman mentioned was the Great American 
Outdoors Act. That is a bipartisan bill. The ranking member, Mr. Cole, 
stated his support for this thing which can and will preserve millions 
and millions of acres of public land and national parks through 
funding. We know the Senate has passed it. We consider it a major 
matter where time is of the essence for the benefit of beautiful places 
all across America, and we want to get that done.

  The two other bills are the childcare bills. In this pandemic that we 
face, childcare has been turned upside down like so many other things 
that have been dealt a blow by the virus. Time is of the essence in 
trying to correct that so America can get back to work, but without 
assistance in the childcare arena, that is just not going to happen. So 
we want to get these things moving.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia and my 
other colleagues for joining me here today to speak on the rule, the 
National Defense Authorization Act, the Great American Outdoors Act, 
the Child Care Is Essential Act, and the Child Care for Economic 
Recovery Act.
  Passage of this rule today will allow the House to continue our 
important work for the people. We will uphold our oath of office to 
protect the United States through consideration of the Mac Thornberry 
National Defense Authorization Act. We will complete the step we took 
last year to support full funding of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund by passing the Great American Outdoors Act, and we will take 
meaningful steps to help hardworking Americans who have been hit hard 
by the COVID-19 pandemic by ensuring that they have access to 
affordable childcare so they can get back to work as soon as possible 
through passage of these two acts.

[[Page H3107]]

  Over the next few days and weeks, we will take action on these 
important bills; we will begin our work to fund the government through 
the passage of the House fiscal year 2021 appropriations bills; and we 
will renew our calls for the Senate to act and pass the next pandemic 
relief package, the HEROES Act, to help Americans across the country as 
we respond to this miserable virus and its effects on our Nation. So I 
hope all my colleagues can join us in getting started with that work by 
passing the rule here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 1053

       Strike section 7 and insert the following:
       Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1957) 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modernize and 
     improve the Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes, 
     with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the 
     House, without intervention of any point of order, a single 
     motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment to the title and concur in the Senate amendment to 
     the text with the amendment printed in section 9 of this 
     resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question.
       At the end, add the following new section:
       Sec. 9. The amendment referred to in section 7 of this 
     resolution is as follows:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, add at 
     the end the following:

     SEC. 4. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO EXPEDITE SALVAGE OPERATIONS 
                   IN RESPONSE TO CATASTROPHIC EVENTS.

       (a) Categorical Exclusion Established.--Salvage operations 
     carried out by the Secretary of Agriculture on national 
     forest land or the Secretary of the Interior on public lands 
     are a category of actions hereby designated as being 
     categorically excluded from the preparation of an 
     environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement 
     under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
       (b) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--On and after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior may use the 
     categorical exclusion established under subsection (a) in 
     accordance with this section.
       (c) Acreage Limitation.--A salvage operation covered by the 
     categorical exclusion established under subsection (a) may 
     not contain treatment units exceeding a total of 10,000 
     acres.
       (d) Additional Requirements.--
       (1) Stream buffers.--A salvage operation covered by the 
     categorical exclusion established under subsection (a) shall 
     comply with the standards and guidelines for stream buffers 
     contained in the applicable forest plan unless waived by the 
     Regional Forester, in the case of National Forest System 
     lands, or the State Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, in the case of public lands.
       (2) Reforestation plan.--A reforestation plan shall be 
     developed under section 3 of the Act of June 9, 1930 
     (commonly known as the Knutson-Vandenberg Act; 16 U.S.C. 
     576b), as part of a salvage operation covered by the 
     categorical exclusion established under subsection (a).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 162, not voting 47, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 139]

                               YEAS--220

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--162

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Murphy (NC)
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiffany
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--47

     Abraham
     Barr
     Blumenauer
     Brown (MD)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Byrne
     Clarke (NY)
     Curtis
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Dunn
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Griffith
     Guest
     Holding
     Hudson
     Jackson Lee
     Katko
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     Loudermilk
     Lowey
     Marchant
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Miller
     Mullin
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rutherford
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Stewart
     Timmons
     Westerman
     Young

                              {time}  1221

  Messrs. FITZPATRICK and COMER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Cardenas (Sanchez)
     Case (Cartwright)
     Clay (Grijalva)
     DeFazio (Bonamici)

[[Page H3108]]


     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Garamendi (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Gomez (Gallego)
     Horsford (Kildee)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Khanna (Sherman)
     Kind (Beyer)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Kuster (NH) (Brownley (CA))
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Moore (Beyer)
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Pascrell (Sires)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Cicilline)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Pressley (Omar)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Thompson (MS) (Fudge)
     Trone (Beyer)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________