[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H3890-H3897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7617, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1067 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1067
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7617) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2021, 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 116-60, modified by the
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, 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
[[Page H3891]]
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 90
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations; (2) the further amendments described in
section 2 of this resolution; (3) 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 part B of 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controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn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 Appropriations or her designee to
offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments
printed in part B of 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 Appropriations 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 part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 5. During consideration of the amendments described in
sections 2 and 3 of this resolution, it shall not be in order
to consider an amendment proposing both a decrease in an
appropriation designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 and an increase in an appropriation not so designated,
or vice versa.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole),
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. McGOVERN: 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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 1067, providing for consideration of
H.R. 7617, the Defense, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water
Development, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland
Security, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2021.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7617 under a structured
rule, with 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Lowey. It makes
in order 340 amendments and provides that the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or her designee may offer amendments en bloc, which will
be debatable for 30 minutes. Finally, the rule provides one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the measure before us is what it looks like when you
don't take an ax to our priorities, as the President has advocated, but
instead, you invest in what is important to the American people. This
is what it looks like when we actually lay the groundwork for a real
recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, instead of just wishing it away
as this President has done.
There are billions and billions of dollars in emergency funding here
to build and repair water projects, to modernize energy infrastructure,
and rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure in this time of
COVID-19. These projects will help get Americans back to work and kick-
start our economy.
The bills included in this underlying package also make long-term
investments in our Nation: In food safety, curbing tobacco use, and
combating domestic abuse and sexual assault; all at levels that exceed
the President's budget request.
There is also landmark grant funding to carry out police reform
efforts, and, yes, even funding to address the health impacts of
climate change because, Mr. Speaker, this majority believes in science,
and we believe in facts.
This bill also includes provisions to stop costly, endless wars by
sunsetting the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the
AUMF, repealing the 2002 AUMF, and prohibiting funds for the use of
force against Iran.
Just as important as what this measure does is what it ensures this
administration cannot do: Like steal money for President Trump's
ineffective border wall, implement its dangerous plan to restart
explosive nuclear testing, or launch another endless war using the 2001
AUMF.
This is about addressing our Nation's emergency needs during this
pandemic today, while building a strong foundation for the future.
Thinking that this pandemic will magically vanish, as this President
has suggested, is not a plan. Hoping that COVID-19 just goes away
without a vaccine, as this President has done, is not a plan.
Real resources like those in this bill, especially when taken with
those in the HEROES Act that passed this House over 2 months ago, will
enable us to confront this virus and build a true recovery.
340 amendments were made in order under this rule, many of which will
make this bill even stronger.
Among them is an amendment I authored to provide more money for radon
testing and mitigation. A national investigation recently uncovered
this harmful chemical in public housing units across the country,
including in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts.
This administration, and HUD in particular, has an obligation to act.
This language will help ensure more funding is there to help protect
people's health and safety.
I am also proud that the underlying bill sets aside $10 million to
create a new nationwide pilot program to help the many grandparents who
are raising their grandchildren today. This funding will provide more
access to safe, affordable, and appropriate housing.
Mr. Speaker, there are two policy ideas put forward during this
process that I especially want to highlight.
The first was an effort led by my good friend, Congressman Bobby
Rush, to create a more 21st century approach toward Cuba. This
President has taken us back to a failed Cold War policy that held our
country back for more than 50 years, a policy that hurts the Cuban
people, and a policy that denies American farmers and American
businesses the opportunity to engage with their counterparts in Cuba.
In short, our policy, Mr. Speaker, is an embarrassment.
The gentleman from Illinois wanted to mitigate some of the pain U.S.
policies impose on the Cuban people by providing easier access to food
and medicine and by making it easier for families in the United States
to send support to their relatives still on the island, especially
during this pandemic.
Now, although the gentleman from Illinois has withdrawn his
amendments, I want to recognize him for his leadership. He has shined a
bright light on a failed policy that badly hurts the Cuban people, and
it urgently needs to change.
Mr. Speaker, we have to change our policy. We must and we will change
our policy, and I look forward to being part of that effort. If we can
trade with China and Russia and Vietnam, we certainly can trade with
Cuba. If Americans can travel virtually to any country in the world, we
ought to be able to travel to Cuba without restriction. And if we
really care about human rights and human suffering, then we ought to
recognize that the American blockade on Cuba is causing tremendous
suffering to the Cuban people.
{time} 1030
So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will in short order take a fresh look
at our policy and move to a more mature, sensible, thoughtful approach
to dealing with Cuba.
[[Page H3892]]
I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Ayanna
Pressley, along with Representatives Lee, Ocasio-Cortez, Schakowsky,
Chu, DeGette, Tlaib, Omar, Pocan, and Speier.
Together they led an important effort to repeal the Hyde Amendment.
This disastrous policy prevents so many, particularly low-income women
and women of color from deciding their own future.
Constitutional rights should not belong to just the wealthy or the
privileged. They belong to every single American, regardless of where
they get their health insurance.
And although this amendment wasn't able to be made in order here
because of several budgetary points of order, I want to say loud and
clear here today that they are right. We need to end this
discriminatory policy, and I look forward to working with them to do
just that. This is a fight that we must have.
Mr. Speaker, getting this broad package here today was a herculean
effort by so many in this Chamber, and I urge all of my colleagues to
support this rule and the underlying measure. Let's get our communities
the resources they need, and let's get our economy back on its feet.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate is on a rule providing for consideration
of H.R. 7617, which contains 6 of the 12 annual appropriations bills
recently reported by the House Appropriations Committee. These six
bills include the two largest, Defense, and Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, as well as the titles covering Commerce, Justice,
Science, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General
Government, and finally, Transportation, Housing, and Urban
Development.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is
always encouraging to see the appropriations process moving forward.
Passing these 12 bills is one of the biggest responsibilities we have
as Members of Congress; to fund the government and keep it open and
operating for our constituents.
Despite that great responsibility, I am disappointed by the partisan
approach taken by the majority in crafting the bills in this package,
and I cannot support them at this time.
I single out the majority in my comments because the 12 bills that
were reported out of committee this year were all written to satisfy
the concerns and wishes of one party, the Democratic party. While that
is often how the appropriations process begins, it is ultimately never
where it ends. At the end of the day, for us to pass 12 full-year
fiscal year 2021 appropriations bills, in an era of divided government,
it will require Members on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers
of Congress to reach consensus. That ultimately means that the partisan
bills like those we are considering today are nonstarters and cannot
become law.
During markup on these measures in the Appropriations Committee and
again yesterday in the Rules Committee, Republicans rightfully raised
several reasons why these bills cannot become law and should not pass
the House. Those objections were ignored. Consequently, today's bill
will have very little, if any, Republican support. That means these
bills are effectively dead on arrival in the United States Senate and
would never be signed by a Republican President, and there are a lot of
reasons for that.
First, all 12 appropriations bills are marked at 302(b) allocation
numbers that violate the fiscal year 2021 total spending limit
negotiated in the current budget agreement just last year.
{time} 1030
Indeed, I remind my friends, Congress is lawfully bound to uphold
that agreement.
Instead of abiding by the negotiated numbers that were agreed to in
both Houses of Congress by both parties and by the President, the
majority has used a huge amount of emergency-designated funds as a
workaround scheme to break that good faith budget agreement.
In this bill alone, there is well over $200 billion in so-called
emergency spending. That violates the budget agreement. This will make
it much more difficult to negotiate final bills with the Senate that
can actually become law.
But what is more disappointing than the widespread use of budget
gimmicks is the prolific use of partisan policy riders throughout the
appropriations bills, including these six. These riders are simply
unacceptable, and they must come out before bipartisan agreement can be
reached.
Consider the bill that I am most familiar with, which came out of the
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee, where I am the ranking member. The text of that bill
includes a wide variety of harmful riders.
In the first instance, the bill includes partisan policy
prescriptions that will tie the hands of the administration with
respect to Title X family planning. Most notably, the riders would
force the administration to resume grants awarded to controversial
groups that provide abortions, such as Planned Parenthood, and it would
prevent the administration from granting waivers that protect deeply
held religious beliefs of institutions, organizations, and individuals
that provide vital services funded in the bill.
The Labor, Health and Human Services title includes riders that would
undo the Department of Labor's rule clarifying the so-called joint
employer standard. If this policy rider were enacted, it would cause
chaos for thousands of businesses and millions of employees, leaving
them uncertain about the nature of their employment relationship.
Not to be outdone, the bill also includes riders micromanaging and
second-guessing how Health and Human Services administers the
Unaccompanied Alien Children Program, which will ensure that the
individuals devoting their energies to assisting such unaccompanied
minors will find themselves devoting their energy, becoming wrapped up
in evermore deeply and congressionally mandated red tape.
The same can be said for the other divisions in this package.
Throughout this minibus, the majority has inserted policy riders that
tie the hands of the administration.
They have limited the ability of the administration to reprogram
funds even when necessary. They have inserted rider after rider aimed
at preventing the President from spending money on barriers and
security measures at the southern border. And they have removed
countless bipartisan policy revisions that have been routinely carried
in previous years' bills.
Let me say it again: Partisan riders like these must come out before
a bipartisan agreement can be reached.
On top of this, while I understand we are living through
unprecedented times and have had to rightly limit our physical
interactions, I have serious concerns about considering these bills in
a six-division, trillion-dollar spending bill.
Debating these measures together as one shuts out the ability of most
rank-and-file Members to have their ideas heard on the floor, or limits
them to having their amendments included in massive all-or-nothing en
bloc packages, and places many Members in an untenable all-or-nothing
vote on both the en bloc packages and ultimately final passage of the
bill.
We can do better than that, Mr. Speaker, and we must do better than
that.
Mr. Speaker, I am still hopeful that we can reach a bipartisan
appropriations deal for the full year. If we can get the prolific
emergency spending and budget gimmicks out of these bills, and if we
can eliminate all partisan policy riders, then I think the majority in
the House will have a workable starting point to begin negotiations
with the Senate toward a bipartisan deal.
Under such circumstances, they would still not be the bills I would
have written, but they would be a reasonable basis on which to begin
negotiations. But until then, these bills are going absolutely nowhere.
They will not pass the Senate, and they will not be signed by the
President into law.
[[Page H3893]]
Frankly, I do not believe they should be passed by this House,
either.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And I acknowledge, I think we
all acknowledge, that we are living in an unusual moment, dealing with
a health pandemic that has already claimed the lives of 150,000 of our
fellow citizens, that has infected millions of our other fellow
citizens, and we are trying to do our best to operate and to get the
people's business done amidst this pandemic.
So, we have given committee chairs en bloc authority to try to
consider amendments en bloc so we can consider more ideas.
In the package that we are bringing before the House today, there are
341 amendments in order. Some of them will require separate votes on
amendments because, quite frankly, there isn't a consensus on some of
them. But many of them are good ideas that can be put in an en bloc
amendment and be incorporated into this bill.
I just say that because the alternative in the middle of this
pandemic is to have fewer amendments, and I don't think that that is
something that Members would want to see happen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R.
7617, the second appropriations package.
The funding included in this bill will advance crucial priorities
like increased broadband access, advancing medical research, and
supporting police reform. These investments are necessary as we
continue to combat the spread of COVID-19 and encourage economic
recovery.
By providing $61 billion in emergency funding to the FCC, we can
expand internet access to unserved and underserved households. As
schools continue to adjust to distance learning, I believe every
student, regardless of their family's ZIP Code or income bracket,
deserves a reliable internet connection to participate in the modern
classroom.
The rule also provides consideration of my amendment to advance
breakthroughs in medical research. My amendment directs an additional
$4.5 million to DOD's Congressionally Directed Medical Research
Program. This program funds high-impact projects, including medical
research for rare diseases like bone marrow failure.
Some of you remember we lost my late husband, Bob Matsui, to MDS, a
bone marrow failure disease. Countless other families across the
country rely on the Defense program's work to discover and develop new
therapies and cures, especially for rare diseases.
I am also very glad that this program dedicates $400 million in grant
funding to help implement needed police reform. This includes pattern
and practice analyses and independent investigations of law enforcement
departments across the country.
While there is still much work to be done, this funding will move us
closer to an America where all are treated equally under the law.
This is a strong comprehensive bill, and I look forward to supporting
it on the floor soon.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond quickly to my friend.
While we appreciate the number of amendments made in order, let's
just look at the statistics. Twenty percent of all the amendments in
this bill are Republican, 60 percent are Democrat, 20 percent are
bipartisan.
Frankly, I am pleased to have hit 20 percent, because for the year,
we are down at about 17 percent of the amendments.
So while we appreciate the difficult conditions, I also remind my
friend that in the last Congress, when we held the majority, they
actually always had more amendments than the Republicans did. So let's
not get carried away with the difficulties of the situation or the
fairness of the process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), my good friend, a distinguished Member,
and an outstanding member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
time.
We should at least comply with the law. I would think that a law-
writing body, Congress, and the Appropriations Committee should at
least follow the law.
Well, again, this rule doesn't do that, and this bill doesn't do
that. Let me explain what I am talking about.
Spent nuclear fuel and defense waste is at 121 sites in 39 States
across this country. The DOE, Department of Energy, was supposed to
take title to this spent fuel and this defense waste in 1998.
Appropriators will like to hear this number. We spend unbudgeted out
of the Judgment Fund $2.2 million every day--$2.2 million unbudgeted--
unappropriated through legal action because we are not complying with
the law.
{time} 1045
The Nuclear Waste Fund currently is booked as having $40 billion in
it, Mr. Speaker, and that $40 billion comes from ratepayers, not even
Federal money. It is people whose States have nuclear power. They pay
into this fund to find a safe disposal site.
Over the past 30 years, $15 billion has been spent. I brought
examples of that $15 billion. Mr. Speaker, this is one box of five of
the Department of Energy's scientific analysis of the safety of Yucca
Mountain, the long-term repository. They finished that, and then they
turned over all of their science.
Let me tell you who was part of this billions of dollars of research
by eight national labs, which comes through this appropriation bill.
Eight labs, the U.S. Geological Survey, and many universities helped do
this research. Then, they sent this research to our independent nuclear
safety agency called the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and they issued
a five-volume report.
This is the fifth volume of that, which says: Using Yucca Mountain as
a long-term geological repository would be safe for a million years,
not 10,000 years, not 100,000 years, not 500,000 years, a million
years.
Now, who did this research? Well, you had experts in geochemistry,
hydrology, climatology, structural geology, volcanology, seismology,
and health physics, as well as chemical, civilian, mechanical, nuclear,
mining materials, and geological engineering.
If we want to use science, want to talk about science, science from
the Department of Energy, science reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission says Yucca Mountain will be safe for a million years for
long-term storage of not just spent fuel but also of our defense waste.
So, what happens when we legally block the final portion of the law?
And the final portion would be: Let's get money to allow Nevada to
argue the science. That is what they always say: Let's argue the
science. Well, this bill, like other bills coming out of the
Appropriations Committee, has zero money to debate the science and do
the adjudication.
So if it had money, and this is part of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, if the adjudication were to resume, one or more boards
would hear evidence and issue decisions on approximately 300 admitted
issues contesting DOE's application or the NRC's staff decision to
adopt the DOE environmental impact statement.
If we would finish the last portion of this debate and have the--it
is actually called the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. They
would look at the science. They would hear Nevada's complaints, and
they would render judgment. That is why we go to courts and stuff to
resolve conflict.
If they don't like that decision, Nevada can appeal the Board's
decision to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If they don't like the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's final decision, they can go to the U.S.
Court of Appeals.
Now, let's address a few things about the State of Nevada. I include
in the Record Nye County Resolution No. 2020-11, which passed this
year. I will read a few portions of it. The title is: ``A Resolution of
the Nye County Board of County Commissioners Supporting the Efforts to
Complete the Yucca Mountain Licensing Process and Resolve the Nuclear
Waste Issue.''
Here is one of the whereases. ``Whereas, almost 1,000 nuclear devices
were detonated on the Nevada test site.''
[[Page H3894]]
``Whereas, Nye County and eight other Nevada counties have passed
resolutions supporting the completion of the Yucca Mountain licensing
process by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine if Yucca
Mountain is safe.''
So, that is nine Nevada counties that say we should move forward.
``Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Nye County Board of
Commissioners does hereby continue to support the efforts to complete
the Yucca Mountain licensing process and resolve the nuclear waste
issue.''
So, that is Nye County, which has the site of Yucca Mountain.
Nye County Resolution No. 2020-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE NYE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTING
THE EFFORTS TO COMPLETE THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN LICENSING PROCESS AND
RESOLVE THE NUCLEAR WASTE ISSUE
Whereas, Nye County Nevada is the third largest county in
the continental United States comprising over 11 million
acres; and
Whereas, almost 98 percent of this land is under either
management or control of various agencies of the federal
government; and
Whereas, Department of Defense and Department of Energy
have withdrawn approximately 4 million acres from public
access and restricted this land to defense, nuclear and other
related government uses; and
Whereas, almost 1000 nuclear devices were detonated on the
Nevada Test Site; and
Whereas, the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendment
selected Yucca Mountain as the single site to be studied, and
in 2002 Congress approved the site for development of a
repository; and
Whereas, Nuclear energy is needed to integrate with
renewable energy to significantly reduce CO2 emissions; and
Whereas, the United States has over 80,000 tons of Spent
Nuclear Fuel and large quantities of High-Level Waste and
other radioactive waste that will require isolation in
geologic repositories; and
Whereas, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act directs the
Department of Energy to pursue a licensing proceeding to
determine if Yucca Mountain is a safe site to house a
repository for Spent Fuel and High-Level nuclear waste; and
Whereas, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is directed by
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to adjudicate if Yucca Mountain
is safe to house a nuclear waste repository; and
Whereas, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has never been
repealed and remains the law of the land; and
Whereas, this waste is currently located in temporary
storage facilities at over 100 sites in 39 states; and
Whereas, reprocessing of spent fuel and fast reactors have
the potential to reduce the amount of waste generated in the
future, there will always be large quantities of radioactive
waste for geologic disposal; and
Whereas, Nye County and 8 other Nevada counties have passed
resolutions supporting the completion of the Yucca Mountain
licensing process by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
determine if Yucca Mountain is safe; and
Whereas, the Nye County Board of County Commissioners have
approved multiple resolutions and letters to the federal
government asking for negotiations with Nye County and the
State of Nevada to identify a package that includes
mitigation and benefits for Nevada residents; and
Whereas, the federal government has made no serious efforts
to negotiate with State and local leaders or offer benefits
to residents of Nevada; and now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Nye County Board of Commissioners does
hereby continue to support the efforts to complete the Yucca
Mountain licensing process and resolve the nuclear waste
issue; and be it further
Resolved, That as part of that effort, Nye County supports
the use of innovative technologies to minimize the amount of
nuclear waste. The research and investments for these
technologies should be done in Nevada creating jobs and
enhancing Nevada's Universities; and be it further
Resolved, That pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
Nye County encourages the Trump Administration and Congress
to develop a benefit package that offers jobs, educational
benefits and with potential revenue for services to residents
and visitors of Nye County and the State of Nevada.
Passed, Adopted, and Approved the 7th day of April, 2020.
Ayes: Koenig, Strickland, Wichman, Cox, Blundo.
Absent: None.
Nayes: None.
Nye County Board of County Commissioners: John Koenig,
Chairman.
Attest: Kelly Sidman; Sandra L. Merlino, Nye County Clerk,
and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, what if we don't do this? Here is a chart.
Here is Yucca Mountain, secure, in the desert, underneath a mountain,
90 miles from Las Vegas.
Right here in this Chamber, we are 44 miles from the nearest nuclear
power plant. It just happens to be Calvert Cliffs. It is on the
Chesapeake Bay, and so it is close.
The State of Nevada will argue it will hurt our tourism. Well, let me
tell you, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City have more tourists
than Las Vegas and are closer to spent nuclear fuel than any other
place.
Again, it is a travesty that we spend $2.2 million every day for not
complying with the law. This bill does not help us comply with the law.
In fact, I would say this bill breaks the law, which is another example
for the great American public to observe how dysfunctional we are in
this day and age in the people's House. It saddens me.
I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just to respond to my good friend, Mr. Cole, who I have
great, great admiration for, but the gentleman said that more
Democratic amendments were made in order. Well, let's kind of put that
into context. More Democratic amendments were submitted, period.
Actually, more than half of the amendments were Democratic.
Let me put it this way: Twice as many Democratic amendments were
offered as Republican amendments, and there was a big chunk of
bipartisan amendments that were made in order.
I don't like to compare our record to their record because the
gentleman wasn't chair of the Rules Committee when the Republicans were
in charge. But I just want to throw this little tidbit out there so
that people can have this: We have made in order 25 percent more
amendments this month than were made in order in all of 2018 under the
Republican control of the House.
Again, I know my friend wasn't the chair at the time, but I just
wanted to point that out for the Record because I think it is a nice
statistic.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. McAdams).
Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today in support of my amendments to H.R. 7617. My amendment
would provide additional resources to the National Suicide Prevention
Lifeline. The CDC reports that from 2001 to 2017, the Nation saw a 31
percent increase in the suicide rate. It is now the second leading
cause of death among Americans ages 15 to 24 and the leading cause of
death for Utahns in this age group.
The lifeline is a nationally accessible service that supports people
in crisis and connects them to the help that they need. The lifeline
has had great success, but it is also under strain as its funding has
not kept pace with its caseload, particularly amid the pandemic's
effects.
I want my amendment to speak clearly to Americans in crisis: There is
help; there is hope; and we are fighting for you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of two amendments to
protect children's safety and well-being.
First, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has
reported staggering increases in online child sex abuse material,
commonly called child pornography. The Federal Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force Program supports task forces in every State to
investigate such online exploitation and abuse of children and bring
perpetrators to justice. My amendment enhances this grant program to
support State and locally driven efforts to protect our children.
Second, child advocacy centers are an incredible tool to support
child survivors of abuse. These centers bring together specialized
child welfare and law enforcement professionals to provide holistic
services to children and to seek justice against abusers. COVID-19 has
put many kids at risk, and my amendment provides additional resources
for centers to meet this demand.
I urge my colleagues to support these amendments to protect, heal,
and give hope to Americans.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to immediately bring up S. 939, the CONFUCIUS
Act, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent a month and a half
ago.
If enacted into law, S. 939 will address China's influence on
American
[[Page H3895]]
colleges and universities through Confucius Institutes, which are
cultural institutes directly or indirectly funded by the Chinese
Government.
Specifically, colleges and universities receiving Federal funds will
be required to certify that the institution ensures that any contract
or agreement between the institution and a Confucius Institute includes
clear provisions that protect academic freedom at the institution,
prohibits the application of any foreign law, and ensures the
institution retains full managerial authority over the Confucius
Institute.
Mr. Speaker, in recent years, Confucius Institutes have become
commonplace among higher-education campuses. While ostensibly high-
minded, these organizations are funded by the Government of the
People's Republic of China and focus on a Beijing-approved view of
Chinese history. They are noted for presenting Chinese Communist Party
propaganda, ignoring human rights abuses in Tibet and among the
Uighurs, and insisting that Taiwan belongs to mainland China.
What is worse, Chinese influence on American campuses comes at a time
in which China is engaged in ongoing efforts to steal American
intellectual property and research, particularly in research
institutions like those located on our higher education campuses.
It is inarguable that Chinese espionage efforts like these pose a
clear threat to national security. Passage of the CONFUCIUS Act would
help close an open loophole on our college campuses currently being
exploited by the People's Republic of China.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me remind my colleagues what the previous question vote is all
about. It really isn't about substance. It is about turning control of
the House over to my friends on the Republican side.
As the chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China who
is very, very concerned about these Confucius Institutes and about
China's continuing escalation of activities within our country, I am
happy to sit down with the gentleman and anyone else to try to bring
legislation to the floor.
We brought a lot of legislation to the floor to check China's growing
power in the world. But this is really not about the Confucius
Institute. This is about turning power over to my friends on the other
side of the aisle.
If they were to succeed, they could bring up whatever they want to
within the rules of the House. And based on some of the statements in
recent weeks by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle about
some of their priorities, it could be some pretty, in my opinion, awful
stuff.
So, I would urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's plea here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support passage
of the House's second package of appropriations bill for fiscal year
2021 as a proud member of the Appropriations Committee and chair of an
appropriations subcommittee.
The defense division of the bill will safeguard our national security
and give our troops a much-needed pay raise.
I appreciate the inclusion of language to expedite replacement of
PFAS firefighting foams and funding to study their health implications.
The bill also supports research for metastatic cancer and encourages
clinical trials that affect the demographics of our population.
{time} 1100
The Commerce-Justice-Science division includes language from my PACE
Act, which I introduced with Congressman Alcee Hastings. Our
legislation seeks to disrupt the distrust and improve communication
between police and communities of color.
I am also proud that my colleague, Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence, and
I secured $8 million for the Matthew Shepard hate crime investigation
and prosecution grant program that was previously authorized and will
now be funded for the first time.
The bill addresses the growing problem of online child exploitation
by carving out $40 million for Internet Crimes Against Children task
forces.
Funding is also included to research coral reef disease and harmful
algal blooms, two significant problems for sea life in the State of
Florida.
I am particularly proud of the Energy and Water division, as a member
of that subcommittee. The bill funds Everglades restoration projects at
a historic $250 million, a major bipartisan achievement. I am also
grateful for the inclusion of a fix to cut red tape that has delayed
Everglades restoration projects and will allow them to begin. To
protect our investment, the bill includes language that I wrote to
block oil drilling in the Florida Everglades.
I am encouraged that this bill provides increases for the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and ARPA-E.
I am glad that the Financial Services division includes $500 million
for election security grants for States to fight foreign intervention
because, apparently, the President isn't interested in doing that.
The report also includes language to improve postal security, which
affected my office as well as the offices of Congresswoman Maxine
Waters and numerous other leaders after a failed bombing attempt, an
incident that raised serious postal security concerns.
I am also pleased that the bill includes funding for pool safety
grants that address swimming pool drownings, the number one cause of
accidental death for young children in this country.
Next, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education division
includes vital funding for EARLY Act activities, an initiative I passed
to promote breast cancer awareness for young and at-risk women. I was
diagnosed with breast cancer at 41 years old, and I am proud to say
that I am now approaching my 13th year as a survivor, and I appreciate
the opportunity to make sure we can educate more young women and women
at higher risk of their risk of breast cancer so they pay attention to
their breast health.
Additionally, the bill includes support for Holocaust survivors, who
face countless obstacles as they age.
Further, the bill protects unaccompanied migrant children by ensuring
Members of Congress can visit child detention facilities with no prior
notice--important accountability provisions. Language similar to my
Families, Not Facilities Act was included to help unaccompanied migrant
youth find sponsors.
Finally, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development division
provides investments in our transportation infrastructure and housing
programs. I am glad to see $60 million for housing homeless veterans
who have given so much for this country.
I applaud the inclusion of provisions throughout the minibus to
assert our authority as a coequal branch of government by prohibiting
funds from being stolen by the President to pay for any border wall,
which would be grossly irresponsible.
I thank my fellow subcommittee chairs and, once again, thank
Chairwoman Lowey as she retires from the Appropriations Committee, and
their intrepid staff for the hard work that went into producing this
minibus that takes care of the many needs people of all backgrounds
face in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond quickly to the overall thrust of
what is in these bills. There is no question, as my friend from Florida
said, there are a lot of good things in these bills.
My friend from Florida is actually a distinguished member of the
Appropriations Committee, one whom I have had the opportunity to work
with on many occasions. We don't object to those. But what is
undeniable is there is roughly $40 billion more in spending than my
friends agreed to only last year. Now, that is a budget cap imposed by
law.
[[Page H3896]]
Occasionally, Mr. Speaker, you have reason to do emergencies. We are
living through an emergency right now. But if you need emergency
spending, you negotiate that with the other side. There was no
negotiation here with Republicans in the House. You certainly negotiate
with the other Chamber, Mr. Speaker, particularly when it is controlled
by the other party. There was no negotiation with the other Chamber.
And you certainly negotiate with the President of the United States--no
negotiation with him either. It is just a number made up out of whole
cloth to keep my friends from having to make some tough budgetary
decisions that they agreed to make and passed into law only last year.
The second thing, as I mentioned, is these bills are chock-full of
partisan riders. That is just the reality. Now my friends know none of
these riders are going to remain in these bills or the bills will never
pass the United States Senate and never be signed by a Republican
President, so I suppose they were put in there for some internal
reason.
I hope they are not put in there to keep us from going past the
September 30 deadline, which all these bills should be finished by,
into later this year or, goodness knows, next year, when my friends
might think they might have a more politically favorable environment.
That is a disservice.
This Congress ought to get its job done. It can't get its job done
when one side decides to break its agreement, add almost a quarter of a
trillion dollars in new spending, and add dozens of new policy
provisions that they know are unacceptable.
We can have those debates. They are good debates to have, but they
don't belong in the middle of appropriations bills. I am not naive
enough to say that both sides don't do this. We certainly did it when
we were in the majority on some occasions. But when we did do it, it
always slowed down the process and made agreement more difficult.
Last year, 2019, the President, the Speaker, the minority leader, the
Senate majority leader, and the Senate minority leader sat down and
negotiated a deal. They said that these are going to be the spending
limits, and we are not going to put any extraneous things in these
bills.
To my friends' credit, last year they actually did that. They stayed
within the limit that we had set, and they did not put extraneous
things in the bill. Consequently, all those bills passed; they all got
enacted into law; we have had no government shutdowns; and we have had
regular order.
Why they decided this year to abandon the agreement that they
actually committed to last year and launch spending initiatives and
policy initiatives that they said they would not do is beyond me, but I
do remind them it will make it much more difficult to come to
agreement.
So, given that, and given the fact that my friends have not kept the
agreement that they agreed to last year, assented to last year, I am
going to oppose the rule and urge rejection of the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time on my side. I would
just say to my colleagues before I yield to the gentleman for his
closing remarks that I think these are good bills that will help us not
only get through this pandemic, but help set the stage for the economic
recovery that we need.
While we are all here talking, I hope my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle are picking up the phone and calling their Senate
counterparts and calling the White House and urging them to get serious
about a coronavirus relief package that we desperately need.
Schools in some districts are about to open up, and there is no
Federal aid to help with what they may need to keep our children and
our teachers safe. There is no money going to our cities and towns that
are financially strapped because of our economy having shut down, no
money to protect people so we can have safe elections, nothing--not
anything--to help the millions of people in this country who are
hungry.
The Senate proposal, which I am not even sure it is a proposal
anymore, has no money in it for SNAP. The most vulnerable people in
this country get nothing when it comes to putting food on the table.
They have reduced unemployment benefits, and then they sneak in money
for an FBI building and money for defense contractors while they
shortchange everybody else.
We are in a healthcare crisis, we are in an economic crisis, and we
need to respond. These appropriations bills, again, are a way to help
us get back on our feet; but, in the immediate term, we need to get the
Senate to get serious and respond, as the House did over 2 months ago,
and extend a lifeline to the American people.
This is serious. Mr. Speaker, I don't care whether you are a Democrat
or a Republican. I hear from constituents of all political persuasions
who are begging us to do something to help teachers and
superintendents.
Where is the help? Mayors, town managers, and city managers are
asking: Where is the help?
The House acted over 2 months ago--nothing from the Senate. So I
think these appropriations bills are good, but we need to get something
else done even before these become enacted.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by telling my good friend that I have
many of the same concerns he does about the coronavirus crisis and the
need to act on another bill.
That is not what is before us today, but I look forward to when that
time comes and we have a negotiated product to working with my friend
and seeing if we can find the necessary support to make sure that is
enacted into law. Indeed, the Senate is involved in doing that right
now.
What is before us today is the work of the Appropriations Committee
of the House of Representatives, not coronavirus legislation per se,
although there are certainly elements in this bill that deal with that.
Let me again reiterate what I said just a few minutes ago: There are
a lot of good things in these appropriations bills. Appropriators work
hard and quite a few often work together. We have an excellent chairman
and an excellent ranking member, and so we cooperate. So there are many
good things in these bills. But what makes them fundamentally
unacceptable is, first, a decision to insert almost a quarter of a
trillion dollars of emergency spending that violates the budget
agreement that my friends signed only last year.
Mr. Speaker, if you need an emergency measure--that happens--then you
sit down and negotiate with the other side about what the amount is and
what the nature of the response is. There was no effort to negotiate
with Republicans on this emergency spending--not in the House, not with
the Republican-dominated United States Senate, and not with the
Republican President. So these are just numbers willy-nilly sort of
thrown in there, and they are not going anywhere. In that sense, we
have wasted a lot of time.
Second, my friends agreed, also, last year to no riders, no policy
provisions in the bills. We will just have straight government funding
bills. Last year, they did that. They kept that agreement last year.
They kept to the top line numbers, and they kept to their agreements in
terms of policy. We passed all 12 bills in a bipartisan manner. The
President signed them, and we have enjoyed the benefit of that this
year. We have had no government shutdown and we have had no crises. The
work was done in a timely fashion.
Why my friends abandoned a formula and an agreement that worked last
year to do this is beyond me. Frankly, it smacks a little bit of
election-year politics; but, regardless, the purpose is to fund the
government and to keep the government working for all of our citizens,
providing basic services.
These bills won't do that because they violated an agreement last
year and they contain things that my friends recognized a year ago
that, if we do that, then we are not going to get to any agreement on
spending. The same thing is true today. The political constellation
hasn't changed. It won't change for the balance of this fiscal year,
and it won't change for the balance of the calendar year.
If we were serious about legislating, we would write real bills that
adhere to the agreements that both sides make, not add additional
hundreds of billions of dollars of spending and add additional policy
provisions that we know
[[Page H3897]]
the other side will not accept. Unfortunately, that is what is being
done here.
So I regret that. I hope my friends at some point will decide to come
back and bargain. I suspect they will. They usually do. But we are
wasting precious time now. We could have completed all these bills.
Frankly, I will chastise the Senate here, too, because they are not
moving very fast on the basic necessity of these bills. They have a
tougher process. They can't just get a majority and ram things through
the way my friends have the ability to do when they are in the majority
and we have the ability to do when we are in the majority. It is a
little bit different in the Senate of the United States. I recognize
that.
But we should make a contribution. We should have stuck to our
agreement. We need emergency spending, which I think we do. That should
come outside the confines of this legislation in standalone, emergency
legislation agreed to by both sides negotiating in good faith. We have
done that four times this year already. We are pretty good at it. If we
would do it again for a fifth--and they are trying to do it now in the
Senate--then I think we could deal with those other items that are in
these bills that, quite frankly, belong in a standalone supplemental
dealing with coronavirus.
So, with that, I want to thank my friend for the time, and I want to
thank him for the debate. As always, I look forward to working with
him; but, for the moment, I urge the rejection of the rule and urge the
rejection of the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the Rules Committee staff and
members for all of their incredible work during the last few weeks. We
have processed thousands of amendments. We have had hours and hours and
hours of hearings. We have listened to countless Members testify, and
we were able to get through it all.
But, again, I want people to appreciate especially the work of the
staff. I say that in a bipartisan way that the Democratic staff and the
Republican staff of the Rules Committee worked incredibly hard. I don't
think most people even know it, but they ought to know it because this
is a lot of work.
I say to the gentleman from Oklahoma who is my friend, we don't
always agree on everything, but I am very fortunate to have him as a
ranking member because I think he respects this institution and he
fights very hard for his beliefs. I fight hard for my beliefs. But even
when we disagree, it is not in a personal way. We can disagree without
being disagreeable, and I appreciate him for that, and my other
colleagues as well.
{time} 1115
Mr. Speaker, this rule is about moving forward to consider a measure
to get annual and emergency funding moving to help put people back to
work, to reinvigorate our public health system, to rebuild our aging
roads and bridges, and to put an important check on this
administration. This rule also is about whether we should debate
hundreds and hundreds of amendments from Democrats and Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately about whether we fulfill one of our
most fundamental responsibilities. I urge all of my colleagues to come
together in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Let's
ensure this Congress continues to provide the leadership the American
people are demanding.
The material previously preferred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 1067
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (S. 939) to establish limitations regarding Confucius
Institutes, 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. 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 and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to commit.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of S. 939.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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. COLE. 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
are postponed.
____________________