[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.
____________________