Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2740) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 430) authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 431 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, H.R. 431, providing for consideration of H.R. 2740, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, and H. Res. 430, authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas and, also, for other purposes.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2740 under a structured rule, self-executes Chairwoman Lowey's manager's amendment, and makes in order 106 different amendments.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally and divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and provides that they may offer up to 15 pro forma amendments, each for the purposes of debate.

The chair of the Appropriations Committee may also offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments made in order by the rule and not earlier disposed of.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 430 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally and divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this rule pairs two bills which demonstrate the commitment of the House majority both to making strong progress for the American people in the areas of health, labor, and education, at the same time that we defend the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law against the obstructionism and the lawlessness of the executive branch of government.

Let's start with H.R. 2740, which is designed to make government work for our people. It provides $189.9 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

It increases investment in the National Institutes of Health, our country's preeminent medical research agency, a national treasure, which is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, in my district, to support research for Alzheimer's disease, HIV/Aids, breast cancer, colon cancer, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, childhood cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, mental health, suicide prevention, and the Cancer Moonshot initiative.

The people of NIH and their network of allied entities and agencies and supported universities and research labs across the country are making profound progress in the struggle to uplift the health of the people against all of the killer diseases of our time.

And for the first time in more than 20 years, this bill contains funding to support gun violence and firearm injury prevention research, and we are proud of that.

This legislation increases funding for Department of Education programs to help America's children succeed, providing critical resources for elementary and secondary schools, special ed programs, and Federal student aid. Importantly, the bill increases the maximum Pell grant to help America's college and graduate students keep pace with inflation and the high cost of living.

H.R. 2740 also provides $56.4 billion in funding for the State Department, USAID, and the U.S. Institute of Peace. We are making major strategic investments in diplomacy, global health, and international basic education, the crucial ingredients for maintaining peace and security around the world.

This legislation provides essential humanitarian assistance and critical funding to improve maternal and child health, to fight diseases like malaria, and to support women's reproductive health and literacy across the globe. We know that the key to improving social and economic development around the world is the education of women and the investment in family planning programs and literacy about procreation.

This legislation renews our Nation's commitment to addressing the climate crisis by investing in directives on adaption and renewable energy. It also prohibits the use of any government funds to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

Now, on the other legislation, which deals with contempt, Mr. Speaker, we know from Special Counsel Mueller's report that there was a sweeping and systematic assault on America's elections in 2016. There was a conscious effort and plan by Vladimir Putin and the GRU to undermine and destabilize the American elections by interfering and hacking into the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Hillary Clinton's offices to inject poisonous ideological propaganda into the body politic of America through Facebook, through Twitter, through YouTube and other social media entities and then to directly hack into the State boards of election.

The Department of Justice launched a special counsel inquiry. It was a Republican Attorney General who named a Republican special counsel, Mr. Mueller, to do it.

The President of the United States, according to Special Counsel Mueller's report, engaged in at least 10 different episodes of efforts to interfere with that investigation, to obstruct justice. We received that report a couple of months ago from the special counsel.

In the aftermath of it, President Trump said, ``We are fighting all subpoenas,'' and declared that there would be no cooperation from the executive branch with legislative branch subpoenas, with our demands for documents, with our demands for witnesses, with our demands for testimony from the executive branch. He said: ``I don't want people testifying,'' and, ``There is no reason to go any further.'' And since then, they have drawn a curtain down over the executive branch of government and defied the lawful orders of the Congress of the United States.

The Trump administration is stonewalling, from pillar to post, congressional investigations, defying validly issued congressional subpoenas. So, for example, Attorney General Barr is refusing to produce the full unredacted Mueller report and the related underlying evidence to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Every other independent special counsel had simply turned their report over to Congress and Congress did the redactions, but Attorney General Barr engaged in a series of games with the Congress of the United States and confused the American public, as Special Counsel Mueller complained in a letter that he sent to the Attorney General.

He is also defying a House Intelligence Committee subpoena directing him to turn over documents and materials related to Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, including all counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials produced during the investigation.

Don McGahn, the former White House counsel, has defied a subpoena issued by the House Committee on the Judiciary without any substantial legal basis at all.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is defying a subpoena from the House Ways and Means Committee directing him to produce the President's tax returns under a statute that makes it crystal clear that Congress has a right to obtain the tax returns of the President or any other citizen of the United States.

Commerce Secretary Ross and Attorney General William Barr are refusing to comply with duly authorized bipartisan subpoenas from the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which is investigating the administration's shadowy and illicit efforts to add an illegitimate citizenship question to the 2020 Census completely outside of the Administrative Procedures Act process. Several District Courts have struck that down. But, in any event, the administration is refusing to turn over evidence, relevant evidence, to Congress about this effort to impose the citizenship question on the census.

The administration is refusing to turn over documents, witnesses, and testimony relating to the corruption of the security clearance process in the White House personnel office.

There were 25 different individuals who were denied a security clearance by the professional staff in the White House personnel office, who were then overruled by President Trump or political appointees. We are trying to get information as to what was the basis for the original denial. It was, likely, conflict with foreign governments or financial conflicts of interest. It might also have been drug or alcohol problems. But we want to get the details of each one, and then we want to know if there is any written documentation of why the President and his subordinates overturned those.

In all of these cases, Mr. Speaker, the executive branch of government has followed President Trump's orders to say, simply: We are not going to turn anything over to Congress.

Now, understand, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that it is an essential and integral aspect of legislative power to engage in investigation and factfinding. That is how the people's Representatives are able to legislate: We are able to get information. But if you shut down our ability to get information, we cannot engage in lawmaking. For that reason, we have begun to win in all of these Federal District Court cases where we are going out to try to get this information.

But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot tie up the floor of the House of Representatives every time the executive branch decides to follow the order of the President and simply deny us the information that we seek.

My friends across the aisle know from the Fast and Furious investigation, the Hillary Clinton email investigation, the Benghazi investigation it is Congress' right to investigate and to obtain the documents that it wants. They obtained millions of documents

in those investigations. We had a right to get them then, and we have a right to get all of these documents now.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will give the power, first of all, to the Committee on the Judiciary to follow through on the subpoenas that it has issued. It will also empower and authorize each chair of the House of Representatives to enforce their lawful subpoenas that are being dishonored and violated by the executive branch of government.

So we are very proud to bring forward these two pieces of legislation, one which makes good on our commitment to the American people to continue to make progress in the fields of education, healthcare, labor, and scientific and medical research while, at the same time, we defend the Constitution, the rule of law, the prerogatives and powers of Congress against the lawlessness and the obstructionism of this administration.

We are the preeminent and primary branch of government. The very first sentence of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

The second sentence that follows is all legislative power is vested in the Congress of the United States.

The sovereign power of the people comes right through the preamble into Article I, establishing us as the representatives of the people. Then you get dozens of paragraphs setting forth all the powers of Congress: to declare war, to raise revenues, to write budgets, to impeach the President or other executive branch officials who commit high crimes and misdemeanors and to remove them in the Senate, to set up a post office, to govern the seat of government, and to establish a capital city. Those are the prerogatives and powers of Congress.

Then you get to Article II, and Article II fixes the powers of the President. What are the President's core responsibilities? To take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That is the President's job: to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

It is even in Article II that the President can be impeached, in Section 4.

Just to make it clear, the President works for the Congress; the Congress doesn't work for the President. And we, the Congress, work for the people.

That is what it means to have a representative democracy. We work for the people.

Now, we have a President who is in an unprecedented, wholesale, categorical defiance of the powers of Congress by denying us the information that we seek to obtain, which is our right and which is our need.

We are going to get it, and we are going to get it by empowering Congress to go to court to enforce our subpoenas.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear from my friend from Oklahoma about both of these bills. We were here together last night until around midnight, working on the rules for these bills.

On H.R. 2740, the appropriations package that we have together, we have authorized more than 100--I think the number is 112--bipartisan amendments. In fact, I think the first amendment is one that is from the gentleman from Oklahoma. We have made that first.

I won't be voting for it. I won't be supporting it, but he has the opportunity to make his case on the floor of the House of Representatives and to present it to colleagues.

We are proud of the fact that there are more than 100 amendments. In fact, I think we are meeting again this afternoon, and we might adopt dozens more amendments, for the consideration of the full House.

But on the question of H. Res. 430, which is to empower the Judiciary Committee and the other committees in Congress to enforce our right to obtain information that we seek, I think that this should be an overriding, bipartisan commitment within the Article I branch, within the Congress of the United States.

We simply cannot tolerate a posture from the President of the United States--and it is hard for me to think of any other Congress that would tolerate it from any other President--of noncooperation and absolute, comprehensive, and wholesale defiance of the will of Congress in trying to seek information.

My good friend from Oklahoma says that the President does not work to enforce the laws of Congress; he works for the people. Well, we all work for the people. That was my point. His job is to take care that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed. We work directly for the people.

At least until we get a national popular vote for President, the President is not elected by the people, as we know from the 2016 election itself where the popular vote winner, who gained several million more votes than Donald Trump did, lost the election because of the workings of the electoral college.

The Presidency was set up as an indirect mechanism, and that is something that I think that we should be replacing. But I think it is not appropriate to claim a popular mandate for the President when the President emerges from the electoral college.

In any event, the President's job is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed and also to be the Commander in Chief in times of actual conflict, but it is up to Congress to legislate. That is what we do. That is why it is so problematic when the President of the United States says:

I will not accept a bipartisan congressional rejection of

billions of dollars in funding for my border wall; I am going

to declare a national emergency and then reprogram money from

other lawfully appropriated purposes.

That is a violation of the spending power of the Congress of the United States. It is just like the President rejecting a bipartisan repudiation of his involvement with the Saudi Government in the Yemeni civil war. We have not declared war with Saudi Arabia against Iran or anybody else in the Yemeni conflict, and so we don't want to be involved in it. We don't want our money going to that bloody humanitarian catastrophe, and yet the President simply rejects the majority will of both Houses of Congress. That is a decisive rejection in defiance of Congress' power to declare war.

Now what we are getting is this complete defiance of our ability to get the information that we need. The President said it very clearly. He basically said: No subpoenas, no witnesses--enough--and no do-overs.

So he is not going to allow us to investigate the compromised security

clearance process and the White House is not going to allow us to investigate the completely suspect corruption and distortion of the constitutional mandate for a Census which we have got to do by virtue of the Constitution every 10 years, and he is not going to cooperate with any investigation into the matters that were covered by Special Counsel Mueller; the organized, systematic comprehensive, sweeping attack on our elections by the GRU and Russian agents or the more than 100 contacts they had with the Trump campaign or the 10 different episodes of Presidential obstruction of justice that were set forth by Special Counsel Mueller in his report.

We can't accept that. So this legislation in H.R. 430 will give us the opportunity to go to court right away to enforce our subpoenas against this unprecedented defiance of congressional power by the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, all of us, of course, embrace and uphold the First Amendment and the rights of religious freedom, the right to not have government establish a religion and to participate in the free exercise of religion and to worship or to not worship exactly as you please. There is nothing in any of our legislation that would interfere with anybody's right to exercise precisely their religious preference to worship exactly as they please and to belong to whatever religious faith or denomination they want.

I am not quite sure exactly what the gentleman was referring to. We know that the idea of a religious freedom to discriminate has been asserted ever since the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where the hotel and motel, lunch counter and department store owners said that they had a religious right to only serve the customers that they wanted and that it violated their religious faith to have interracial parties seated in restaurants or at the lunch counter. Our Supreme Court rejected that, and this Congress has rejected that.

There have been similar efforts to say we have a constitutional right not to serve gay and lesbian customers. That has been rejected, and I hope that this Congress will also reject it.

We passed the Equality Act very proudly to add protection for LGBT people to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I hope that the Senate will go along with it.

In any event, there is nothing in any of the legislation before us and none has been cited which violates any of the free exercise rights of the people. So with that, unless I hear anything further, I am not moved by how anybody is affected by this appropriation negatively.

My other good friend from Oklahoma referenced the phrase checks and balances, and that does appear in the Federalist Papers. I think it is in Federalist 51. It actually refers to the relationship between the House and the Senate. That was the design of the Framers of the Constitution that the House and the Senate would check and balance each other. But the Framers were very clear that we were overthrowing monarchy. We didn't want monarchy. That is why we got rid of the king. The revolutionaries and the rebels who gave us America and who wrote the Constitution were trying to institute a new form of government representing We the People. That is why we are so proud to be able to serve in the people's House here along with our friends in the Senate.

But the President's core job is to take care that our laws are faithfully executed. We have no kings here; we have no monarchs here. That is why we have the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution which says that none of us who serves in Washington can accept any present-- any emoluments, which just means a payment--any office or title from a prince, a king, or a foreign government without the consent of Congress.

That is a cardinal principle in the Constitution. It is our original anti-corruption principle because the Framers did not want the President or Members of Congress selling out the country. They wanted complete, undivided loyalty by those of us who come to Washington, who aspire and obtain the public office to have complete, undivided loyalty to the American people and not to lobbyists for foreign governments, agents, and saboteurs.

So that is another real problem that this President seems not to recognize. That provision obligates him whenever he receives any money from a foreign government through his hotel or his office towers or any of his going businesses that he has kept going in the course of his tenure, whenever he receives any of that money, he has got to come to Congress to ask for our permission and for our consent.

Mr. Speaker, we can show you records from lots of prior Presidents who came to Congress to ask for a consent because they received a Persian rug, or a shawl, or cufflinks. Yet--at least according to court reports and media reports--this President has been receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars from foreign governments. In fact, the President I think made a voluntary deposit he said of the profits from foreign government receipts of $350,000 to the U.S. Treasury without any accounting to us, without any receipts, and without asking for our consent.

So even if the Constitution says that you can't accept the profits from foreign payments, which it doesn't, it says you can't accept foreign payments. That would be insufficient because Congress has got to offer its consent.

Look, we need to lay down the law about all of these matters. When we ask for a document, we want the document. When we issue a subpoena from the United States Congress, you comply with the subpoena. When we ask for

a witness, the witness arrives. That is what H.R. 430 is all about. We have got to empower Congress to enforce its will.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I still have not heard a single instance offered from anybody whose religious freedoms under the Constitution of the United States are threatened by any of the legislation here.

I do know that the ultimate logic of the argument that we just heard here is to support legislation like what was just passed in the State of Alabama. In Alabama today--please read an article in the Washington Post this morning, Mr. Speaker--in Alabama today if this legislation is signed into law, a 15-year-old girl who is raped by her step-uncle not only would not be able to obtain an abortion, because there is no exception for rape or incest in the ban that the legislature just passed, but she would be compelled to have him involved in the raising of the child because Alabama protects the paternity rights of the rapist. So it is one of only two States in the country where a rapist continues to have parenthood rights in the child.

So get this straight. If what we are hearing is actually enacted into law--and I understand my colleagues to be encouraging legislation like this around the country, like the law in Alabama--we will have a situation where girls who are 15 or 14 or 13 or 16 years old who are raped by their stepfathers or step-uncles must carry a child to term, have the baby, and in some States be forced to raise the baby with the rapist.

So I don't think that is where we are today in America under Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, and certainly the majority is going to stand very strong for healthcare for women and reproductive freedom for women and men to make their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It is a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) on H.R. 2740 and H.R. 4340, and I do urge all of our colleagues to support this rule for this legislation.

I do hope my friend from Oklahoma will tutor some of his colleagues, like the last speaker, who referred to the ``Democrat majority.'' Democrat is the noun. Democratic is the adjective for our party, and I think that would be a basic gesture of interparty civility if they would follow that fairly easy grammatical device.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other Members from the other side, I think from Oklahoma, talked about some education matters, so I want to go to some statistics that actually mean something to the American people. I think we can refute all of the statistics that were advanced by my friend from Oklahoma, as I said.

There are more than 100 amendments that we are going to be bringing up today, and we are going to be adding more of them, and we certainly don't want to endure lectures from people who belong to the caucus that ran the most closed Congress in the history of the United States.

But here are some figures that actually mean something to the American people. Our bill provides a total of $75.9 billion in appropriations for the Education Department, which is $4.5 billion above the 2019-enacted level, and $11.9 billion beyond what the President asked for. So that means dramatic increases in everything from IDEA special education spending, to education, innovation, and research programs, to spending for teacher professional development evidence-based models and so on.

We are also increasing money for student financial assistance for Pell Grants for higher education, because it has become too difficult for our young people to make their way through college, and they are graduating, basically, with a mortgage of 100 or $150,000, but they don't have a house to go with it. So this majority is committed to alleviating the burden on America's college students.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to make progress, under very difficult circumstances with this President, for the American people in the realm of education, healthcare, scientific and medical research. We are making that progress, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me the time.

We finished up in the Rules Committee, I think, before 10 p.m. last night. I was optimistic that we finished up that early.

It is not the Members you need to worry about, Mr. Speaker. It is the staff of the Rules Committee you need to worry about, because they had hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of amendments submitted that they were going through all weekend long, trying to sort out what are those amendments that could be made in order, what are those amendments that would need waivers of the rules, what are those amendments that could be considered on the floor and not be repetitive.

It is an amazing burden on the staff to have to go through all those amendments, Mr. Speaker, and it is an unnecessary burden.

You weren't here at the time, Mr. Speaker, but I am looking right down here below me at the gentleman from Kentucky. He used to be the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee the last time we came to the House floor under regular order, as my friend from California suggests, and we allowed every Member of this institution--everyone who had been elected by their constituents back home, everyone who has a voting card--to come and offer any idea that they had to improve upon the underlying bill.

I don't take issue with much of what my friend from California said about many of the good things in this bill. There are many good things in this bill.

But what I love about the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker, different from the Rules Committee, is they come to the House year after year and say we have done an amazing job working together in a bipartisan way in the Appropriations Committee, but the other Members of the House who don't serve on that committee, if they have some expertise that they think can improve the bill, bring it on. Bring it on. Let's go down to that House floor. Let's have that festival of democracy. Let's test those ideas, and let's send the best product that we can to the President's desk.

My friend from California says that this is a good bill and that it should absolutely be signed by the President. She could be right. I would probably disagree with her, Mr. Speaker, but she could be right.

The fact of the matter is, the law of the land, as it exists today, won't let us implement this bill. This bill spends above those caps, the statutory spending caps passed by the Congress and signed by the President.

This bill cannot become law at these levels. If it were to, we would have an automatic sequester that brings the levels down.

That is a terrible way to govern. We have learned that lesson over the past 10 years together.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I didn't have to point to the gentleman from Kentucky and say remember the days when

everybody's voice mattered in this institution. Remember those days. That day should be today. It is not an easy pathway to get back to.

I remember when we were trying to do open rules on the Republican side. My Democratic colleagues would come to the floor and offer amendments that they knew would pass with a minority of Republican votes and a lot of Democratic votes. Then they would vote in favor of that amendment to change the bill, but they would vote against the final bill, knowing it would not be able to pass without their support.

That is a great strategy, and it has been used by both sides, if my colleagues want to be in the business of making a point. It is an awful strategy if my colleagues want to be in the business of making a difference. If Members came to this institution to govern instead of to get the next sound bite, that is a terrible path to be on.

Mr. Speaker, if Members went through those hundreds of amendments the way that the Rules Committee staff went through them over the weekend, they would see good idea after good idea after good idea that has been turned away before it could be considered on the floor of this House. I don't know whether those amendments would have passed or failed. I know some of them would have passed; I know some of them would have failed.

There was a time in this institution when we let the votes decide, when we let the membership decide.

Mr. Speaker, we have changed those rules. It is now 13 men and women who sit on the Rules Committee who decide.

I value my friend from California's suggestion that we get back to regular order, and I know it is not an easy path to follow. This bill is the most open we have had so far this year, and yet, it still denies Member after Member, on both sides of the aisle, an opportunity to have their constituents' voices heard.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. If we speak with one voice in this body and reject this rule, we will do better. All it takes is the courage of our convictions to do that.

I hope my Members will stand with me in aspiring to do better today than we did yesterday and better still tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), a colleague of mine on the bipartisan Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a gentleman who offered a germane amendment that was rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Spano).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my friend if she would like to change her last statement.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague well, and I thoroughly enjoy working with her on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am reserving the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California. I do not object.

Mr. Speaker, while we have many champions of life in this institution on both sides of the aisle, none is stronger than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a tireless fighter for life.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to remind the Chamber that we tried to offer an amendment last night in committee that would have addressed this funding.

The Rules Committee rejected the consideration by the whole House of a measure that would provide what we all agree is urgently needed funding. We are seeing some of that passion here at this moment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), one of my colleagues on the Rules Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say when we had this conversation in the Rules Committee yesterday--again, my friend from California is on the Appropriations Committee--and she said we talked about bringing forward an emergency funding bill that is more comprehensive. We are working on expediting that.

I would say to my friend, agreeing to one of these unanimous consent requests would be the absolute fastest way to expedite that if she would like to reconsider her position.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to my neighbor from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to bring H.R. 3056 immediately to the floor under an open rule.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, we spent a great deal of time today talking about the humanitarian crisis on the border, and that is because, despite all of the very positive things that are in this bill that my friend from California has mentioned, what is not in this bill is one single penny to go to the border today. There is not a Member of this institution who does not know that we need that money going to the border today.

I am not talking about contentious issues like border security, though that shouldn't be a contentious issue. That should be an issue of agreement, as well. I am talking about an issue on which we are unanimous, which is taking care of those people who are in the

custody of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3056 would provide $4.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, as a fiscal conservative, I don't say that lightly--$4.5 billion. That is not $4.5 billion to get us through another year, Mr. Speaker. That is not $4.5 billion to start in October and run us through the next fiscal year. That is $4.5 billion today to address needs that exist today, to fill shortfalls that are happening today, to solve problems that demand solutions today.

There is not one word in this bill to provide a single solution anywhere in America today. But if we defeat the previous question and amend the rule as I have suggested, we can provide those solutions today, and we can do it in a partnership way that will make America proud.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would advise my friend that I do not see any speakers remaining, and when the gentlewoman has exhausted her speakers, I will be prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about two kinds of issues down here today. When I listen to my friend from California talk about all the wonderful things that are in the underlying bill, I can't tell you how much I wanted to stand up and celebrate with her that appropriations season is often that way.

Mr. Speaker, you haven't seen it in your time, but there was a time in this institution where the way we spent America's money reflected America's priorities, and it turned out--you wouldn't know it by reading the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, but it turned out those priorities didn't hinge on whether you had an R or a D behind your name. It didn't hinge on whether you came from the Deep South or the Northwest.

It turned out, when we started voting on issues one dollar at a time, we began to find that we had agreements with one another that had not yet been explored. We began to find, Mr. Speaker, that we could celebrate achievements together in ways that had not yet been explored.

Mr. Speaker, the year I came to Congress, and many of my other colleagues here came that very same year, you may remember the appropriations process hadn't been finished by the Democrats. When Republicans took over, the young freshman class of which I was a part said we need to get down there, and we need to finish that job. It was a Tuesday, Mr. Speaker. We brought up the entire Federal discretionary budget.

Now, that is a lousy way to do business. It is a lousy way to do business. We used to bring up bills one appropriations bill at a time.

There are 12 bills, Mr. Speaker. We have gotten in a bad habit of omnibus bills. As you know, what we switched to last year and what the Democratic majority is continuing this year is bringing up groups of four or five bills together.

But at that time, in the spring of 2011, Mr. Speaker, we brought them all up. We brought them all up together. And do you know what we said, Mr. Speaker, the brand-new Republican majority?

You know how it is when majorities change, Mr. Speaker. Folks have gotten their feelings hurt. They feel like they were a little wronged by the previous majority. My friend from California knows what I am talking about.

You might have expected the Republican majority to say, ``We are going to jam our priorities through, diversity of ideas be damned,'' but we didn't. It was Speaker John Boehner at that time, Mr. Speaker, and he said we are bringing up the entire Federal discretionary budget, and any Member, Mr. Speaker, any Member from either side of the aisle who has an idea about how to make it better, their ideas are welcome here on the floor of the House.

Oh, you want to talk about a festival of democracy, Mr. Speaker? We started on a Tuesday. We thought we were going to be done by a Thursday. We ended up going 24 hours a day, finishing in the early hours of Saturday morning.

And by ``finishing,'' Mr. Speaker, I mean we allowed every single Member's voice in this body be heard on every single issue that their constituents sent them here to address. Every Member of this institution left tired, Mr. Speaker, but every Member of this institution left feeling like they had had a chance to represent their constituents the way the United States Constitution intended.

It doesn't always work that way, Mr. Speaker. I sit on the Rules Committee. We decide what amendments are made in order and what amendments aren't.

In the last Congress, when the Republicans controlled this institution, we didn't make every amendment in order. We did not make every amendment in order, Mr. Speaker.

But what we did do is we made more Democratic amendments in order than Republican amendments. We did. But because, for obvious reasons, when you are in the leadership, it is easier to push your agenda. When you have opportunity not to be in the leadership, it is harder to push your agenda. We made more Democratic amendments in order last Congress, Mr. Speaker, than Republican amendments in an effort to bring a diversity of ideas.

This Congress, Mr. Speaker, when Republicans are in the minority and the Democratic majority is writing the rules, 70 percent of all amendments that have been made in order have been Democratic amendments. Eighteen percent of the amendments have come to Republicans. Five times more amendments were given to the majority than to the minority. Again, we gave more to the minority than the majority.

I see my friends from Minnesota down here saying, ``I had an amendment. It was a good idea. My constituents asked me to offer it. It is germane to the underlying bill. I just want my day on the floor to vote.'' That day has been denied, Mr. Speaker, for amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment. Hundreds of amendments. Good ideas, bipartisan ideas.

My friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, had an amendment, Mr. Speaker, that required that we fund nuclear waste disposal licensing. Nuclear waste is

spread out all across this country. I don't know if it is in your district, Mr. Speaker, but I have got it right next door to me. It is stored as best we can across the Nation. We are trying to license a national repository. We have spent billions as a nation preparing for that. All he wanted was a vote on an amendment that has wide and deep bipartisan support. I think it would have won, but we will never know because the powers that be denied him even the chance to discuss it.

The question isn't, is there something good in this underlying bill? The question is, do you believe any of the rest of us have anything to add to make it better?

My friends made in order some Republican amendments. I told you that so far this year there have been five times more Democratic amendments made in order than Republican amendments. This bill today is better. It is only twice as many Democratic amendments than Republican amendments. It is still nowhere close to fair, it is still not representative, but this is where we are.

There is not one dollar, Mr. Speaker, for the humanitarian crisis on the border. The New York Times in an editorial on Sunday said, ``The financial reality is that this agency is overwhelmed.'' Talking about the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

``So far this fiscal year, it has taken charge of nearly 41,000 unaccompanied children, a 57 percent increase over last year. The entire program could run out of funding by the end of June.''

There is not one dollar in this bill for that. That is what my colleagues came to ask unanimous consent to do. That is what defeating the previous question would do.

We all agree there is a crisis at the border.

The editorial goes on for the New York Times, Mr. Speaker.

``There should be no ambivalence about the urgency of addressing the humanitarian needs. While lawmakers wring their hands and drag their feet, tens of thousands of migrant children are suffering.

``Congress needs to get serious about dealing with that suffering.''

There is no bill on its way to the floor, Mr. Speaker, except for the one you heard my colleague ask Member after Member after Member for unanimous consent to bring. And you heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle deny that. I understand. We don't usually get unanimous consent requests to prove during Rules Committee debate.

I don't fault my colleague for objecting. But if we defeat the previous question as I am proposing, Mr. Speaker, and we add an amendment to the rule, we will continue to consider the bill that my friend from California is so proud of. But we will also consider the bill that provides immediate funding to the men and women serving us on the border as they seek to address this humanitarian crisis.

It gives me no pleasure to bring it up during Rules Committee debate, Mr. Speaker, because I don't think we disagree on this. I think we are together on this. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle is saying no and no and no and no to doing something that they know needs to be done. I do not understand it.

But I know this. Here, on Wednesday, we have got one shot to fix it: one. Not two, not three. There aren't a dozen different options. We have got one shot to fix it.

Defeat this previous question, add an amendment to the rule, and bring up this emergency funding supplemental. Do what we all know needs to be done. If it stretches from the editorial page of the New York Times to a conservative Republican from the deep south, Mr. Speaker, you know it has broad bipartisan appeal.

We get so used to saying no in this Chamber. We get so used to running each other out in politics. Let's take yes for an answer. Let's do something we all know needs to be done. Let's take a shot at doing better today than we did yesterday. Maybe we will come back and do better still tomorrow.

Defeat the previous question. Add this amendment to the bill. In the absence of that, I will have to ask that we oppose that rule, Mr. Speaker, and give us a chance to go back to the drawing board one more time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I hadn't had this in the opening, but I want to disagree with my friend right off the top. The President of the United States does not work for the Congress of the United States. He works for the American people, and he heads up a branch of government that is a coequal branch of government. So, on that, we will have a long discussion.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very eventful week in the Rules Committee, and it is only Tuesday. Last night, the committee met and reported out a rule that covers two drastically different measures. H.R. 2740 is an appropriations package that covered first 5 and then 4 of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2020. We also considered H. Res. 430, a resolution that gives authority to the Office of the General Counsel of the House of Representatives to seek to enforce certain subpoenas for documents through litigation.

Shortly after we finish here, the committee will again convene to consider the remainder of the appropriations package, which will be on the floor as part of a separate rule tomorrow.

Meanwhile, our Members will attempt the miracle of being in two places at once as we continue to debate H. Res. 430, which falls into our original jurisdiction here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 430 comes from a dispute over documents relating to the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The dispute also stems from the inherent oversight authority of Congress and our ability to perform oversight functions over the executive branch. It falls into the fuzzy boundaries between the branches of governments as to when and how we may compel the executive branch to turn over documents to the legislative branch.

I lay out that framework because there is an important point here that is being lost. The Democratic majority clearly wants to make this dispute entirely about this President, this Attorney General, this White House counsel, this investigation, this subpoena of documents. The Democrats want to focus attention there because they think it helps them politically to do so. But this dispute really shouldn't be about just that. It should, rather, be about the difficult and thorny questions that emerge in a system like ours with three branches of government with checks and balances.

In a sense, what the majority is seeking to do here today is completely unprecedented, both in its intent and in its execution. Consider the only other times the House has filed a lawsuit to seek to enforce a subpoena for documents. It has happened twice before, Mr. Speaker, once in 2007, to seek documents from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, and again in 2012, to seek documents from then- Attorney General Eric Holder as a result of the congressional investigation into the Fast and Furious scandal.

In both of these cases, the House had already voted to hold both Miers and Holder in contempt of Congress before filing suit, which has not yet happened in this case. In the Miers case, 138 days elapsed from the first document request to the Judiciary Committee voting to hold her in contempt. In the Holder case, it was significantly longer, in that 464 days elapsed from the first document request to the committee voting to hold him in contempt. That was well over a year.

Here, the majority is forcing us to rush forward at a much faster pace. Just 44 days elapsed from the date of the first document request to the Attorney General until the Judiciary Committee voted to hold him in contempt. James Holzhauer has been champion of ``Jeopardy!'' for longer than that.

I don't understand the majority's haste here. Without exhausting all other options--continuing negotiation, discussion, compromise, and turning to a vote on contempt as the last resort--the majority is, instead, pushing this forward into litigation with the executive branch. In doing so, they may well be placing the House in a position that causes significant long-term damage to the institution.

When this matter goes before the courts, it will do so as a case of first impression and under an untested legal theory. In both the Miers and Holder cases, the House previously voted to hold those two individuals in contempt of Congress. Nothing like that has been done here. Using untested tactics like this could set a dangerous precedent that harms us all, Republicans and Democrats, in the long run.

Finally, I would also note that it is not clear what this resolution will ultimately accomplish. Since the House has not yet exercised all the tools in its tool kit, and since it is not clear that the negotiations with the Justice Department and the White House over the documents at issue are at an end, this whole thing may be nothing more than sound and fury. Indeed, given how quickly the majority is rushing into things, it seems unlikely that the only course of action left in the House is to file a lawsuit.

I strongly urge the majority to continue working with the Justice Department and the White House to find a resolution to these issues without resorting to knee-jerk lawsuits that may ultimately damage the House as an institution.

Today, we are also beginning consideration of H.R. 2740, an appropriations package covering 5 of 12 appropriations bills: Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; Legislative Branch; Defense; State and Foreign Operations; and Energy and Water Development. These five bills cover over 70 percent of our total discretionary spending for fiscal year 2020.

To be precise, Mr. Speaker, we were to do five bills. At the last moment, the majority pulled the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. I will let them explain why at their leisure.

As a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, I am pleased that we are beginning to move the appropriations bills to the floor. Unfortunately, the bills before us have numerous flaws, most notably that they are marked to allocation levels that aren't realistic.

As we move forward through the appropriations process, I think we need to be clear about the challenges we face this year.

At the end of September, fiscal year 2019 expires, and sequestration cuts contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011 will automatically take effect for fiscal year 2020. In order to prevent that, we need to come to a bipartisan, bicameral budget deal that the House, the Senate, and the President can all agree on. If we don't, then it doesn't really matter what fake number the House marks to. Sequestration will hit, and our defense budget will automatically be slashed by 11 percent and our nondefense budget by 9 percent below the allocations of 2019.

The spending levels in these appropriations bills are not just ambitious; they are unrealistic. Not only are the funding levels for many of these bills too high, so high that the Senate and the President will never agree to them, but the allocations the Appropriations Committee used reflect the misguided notion that any increase in defense spending must be matched by an increase in nondefense spending that is more than twice as high.

That is simply not a realistic assessment of our national priorities or the fiscal limitations imposed on us by our rising national debt. The defense provision of this bill, for example, comes in at $8 billion less than the President told us was needed to adequately fund the military, maintain readiness, and be prepared to confront international threats.

After years of severe underfunding of our Armed Forces and at a time when threats are emerging everywhere around the globe, spending less than the administration asks for on defense in order to push more money into domestic programs is not a wise course of action.

I am disappointed that the majority chose to strip out pro-life provisions that have been carried in appropriations bills for years. Instead, they added controversial pro-abortion riders that virtually guarantee no Republican support whatsoever for this package.

As the former chair and current ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am familiar with the need for compromise on that particular piece of legislation. But by pushing forward with blatantly partisan riders like these, the majority is guaranteeing the outcome of these bills: dead on arrival in a Republican-led Senate and no chance of getting a Republican President's signature.

In the coming months, I hope we work through these problems, as we did last year, frankly. If the majority intends to move forward with unrealistic spending levels and insists on maintaining partisan riders, then we are simply guaranteeing a failed appropriations process.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our failure has consequences. A best- case scenario is a yearlong continuing resolution that funds the government at the exact same level as the current year. That is the best scenario if we fail. The worst-case scenario is another government shutdown or sequestration that automatically cuts all government funding levels. Neither of these is a good outcome for the House as an institution, for the Federal Government, or more importantly, for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, although I cannot support either bill before us today, I am hopeful that, eventually, we will reach a bipartisan, bicameral compromise on spending that the vast majority of Members in this House can support. That requires realistic funding levels and elimination of partisan riders from this package. The spending package before us today may be a worthy starting point, but it will take hard work and compromise to move the final bill that can become law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). My good friend is the most eloquent advocate for life in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

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 immediately to bring up H.R. 3056 for consideration under an open rule.

The bill provides $4.5 billion of funding to address the immediate humanitarian crisis on the southern border. This is a crisis of significant proportions, Mr. Speaker.

Our facilities for holding new arrivals, particularly children and the vulnerable unaccompanied minors, are already at the breaking point. Simply put, we need more resources, and we need them today.

This is not the first time we have needed to provide supplemental appropriations for this purpose. Back in 2014, then-President Barack Obama asked us for $3.7 billion in supplemental resources for precisely the same purpose. He got it. At the time, we had 60,000 unaccompanied minors who arrived in 2014. We face a similar and, frankly, larger humanitarian crisis today.

President Obama was right to request supplemental funds to deal with the crisis then. We would be right to appropriate supplemental funds to address that similar crisis now.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my friend made reference a little bit earlier to amendments. He talked about the total number of amendments, but he left out the distribution of amendments. So, as the House considers this rule, I think we ought to take a look at how the Rules Committee has handled making amendments in order so far this Congress.

The rule on the floor today is making 106 amendments in order, out of 540 submitted, with hopefully more to come with tomorrow's rule.

Today's rule includes 22 amendments sponsored solely by Republicans. Sadly, this is considered an improvement over the majority's previous efforts.

With today's rule, in total, this Congress, 73 percent of all amendments made in order have been sponsored solely by Democrats--73 percent. Just 16 percent are sponsored by Republicans, with 11 percent bipartisan.

How does this compare with the last Congress? When Republicans were the majority party, 45 percent of all amendments made in order were sponsored solely by Democrats. Only 38 percent were sponsored solely by Republicans, with another 17 percent being bipartisan.

At the beginning of this Congress, the Democratic majority repeatedly promised a new, robust, and open process at the Rules Committee. They pledged that good ideas would be welcomed, no matter where they came from, and that thoughtful amendments would not be blocked.

Unfortunately, they have a long way to go to keep that promise. I think the numbers speak volumes.

We are 5 months into the 116th Congress. Should we expect this trend of shutting out minority party ideas to continue? Should we expect the same course of action in our rule tomorrow and in our rule on the second appropriations package next week and in

other rules in the weeks and months to come?

When will the promises made by the Democratic majority be kept? If not now, when?

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to the rule. The rule will make in order two measures: H. Res. 430 and H.R. 2740.

H. Res. 430 is a premature and ineffective resolution that will push the House forward into untested and ill-timed litigation with the executive branch over the subpoena of documents. While the House has an important oversight role to play, we must be careful to exercise that role wisely and carefully, lest we cause long-term damage to the institution.

H.R. 2740 is a package of 5 of the 12 outstanding appropriations bills that use unrealistic allocation levels and eliminate longstanding pro-life protections that must be restored before these bills can garner any Republican support.

I actually look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and the Senate as we move forward in the appropriations process, and I urge the majority to compromise with the Senate and the White House in order to achieve a final spending deal that avoids drastic sequestration cuts or, worse yet, another government shutdown.

I think that is actually the great lesson of the appropriations process, Mr. Speaker. We know we can do this. We did it last year, and we did it pretty well together.

But my friends have to get past the idea that they can impose their will on a Republican Senate and a Republican President. They are simply not going to be able to do that. They are going to have to bargain to a middle ground and compromise.

In the Appropriations Committee, as a rule, we do that, and we do it pretty well. I am hopeful that we can continue going forward on that front.

I am concerned, however, that the vitriol, if you will, that we see in the investigative and oversight efforts of our friends will spill into that process and lead us into a very difficult situation in September.

So, as we move forward on the appropriations front, again, I hope all of us relearn the virtues of compromise, understand that we were all sent here by the American people, that we have to work with one another to accomplish something, and that none of us can impose their will on the other.

With that, I look forward to working with my friend and with his colleagues and, certainly, through the appropriations process to making sure that the government is appropriately funded and well governed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 436 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported the rule, House Resolution 436, providing for consideration of H.R. 2740, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2020.

The rule provides for further consideration of H.R. 2740 under a structured rule and makes in order 115 amendments. The rule provides no further general debate.

The chair of the Appropriations Committee may also offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments made in order by the rule and not earlier disposed of.

Finally, the rule includes one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, it was only a few months ago that we were standing here voting to end the longest government shutdown in the history of the United States, a shutdown that hurt so many of our constituents, constituents like David Pesko, an FAA air traffic controller at Ontario Airport.

He was in escrow to purchase a home, and, without a paycheck coming in, he had to rely on his family and friends' generosity in order to make ends meet.

We owe David and the American people much more, and that is why I am especially proud of the timely introduction of these appropriations bills. It exemplifies the hard work of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and this majority's commitment to good governance.

Mr. Speaker, in years past, we have relied strongly on omnibus spending

bills to fund the government. But now, with the hard work done by Members on both sides of the aisle, this majority is leading us in a return to regular order.

As has often been said on this very floor, the primary job of Congress is to fund the American government and keep it open and operating. Our constituents deserve no less.

With this package under consideration today, the House will do just that with respect to 4 of the 12 spending bills.

In passing this bill, we will provide crucial funding for services across broad areas of the government and fulfill our promises to the American people. That funding includes historic investments in programs that provide opportunities for millions of people, including my constituents in the Inland Empire.

Perhaps more important than what is included in this bill is what is not included. This minibus rejects the President's draconian budget cuts that would have hurt every American, but especially women and children.

Instead, we have won increased funding for a number of important priorities.

This bill boosts biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, expands opioid abuse treatment and prevention programs, and launches new initiatives for maternal and child health.

I recently visited three health clinics in my district that provide 30,000 families with lifesaving care.

This bill provides $400 million for the Title X Family Planning Program so that everyone in the Inland Empire and across America can continue to have access to cancer screenings, STI tests, reproductive care, and other lifesaving services.

It also protects against the administration's policies that prevent a woman from making choices about her future, like when to have a child.

When women do decide to become mothers, this bill supports them by investing in working families and our children with $7.8 billion for the Childcare and Development Block Grant program.

Passing this bill will demonstrate our commitment to the ideal that all students deserve a quality, safe, and affordable education, and that commitment is realized in over $24 billion in funding for Federal Student Aid programs, almost $2 billion more than the President's insufficient request.

Just as important is this bill's acknowledgement of how far we have to go in helping underserved communities, the bill provides $917 million to assist minority-serving institutions, including $150 million for Hispanic-serving institutions like Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State San Bernardino, and UC Riverside, which prepare thousands of students in my district to be tomorrow's leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I am also happy to report that this legislation provides the funding necessary for a 3.1 percent pay raise for our servicemembers, who continue to serve our Nation around the world.

As the mother of an Air Force veteran, it is wonderful news to hear that our servicemembers are being acknowledged for the hard work that they do keeping our Nation safe, at home and abroad.

In addition to paying our servicemembers more, this bill will protect our men and women in uniform from one of the most common harms that they encounter: sexual assault.

The $38 million in additional funding for DOD'S sexual assault prevention and response programs will ensure that survivors have representation while navigating the complicated military justice process, that they will not have to wait years for a resolution--years, Mr. Speaker--as one of my constituents had to do.

This bill not only invests in our priorities at home; it advances our priorities abroad. I am particularly pleased with increased investments in certain areas, including global reproductive health and aid to Central American countries.

This bill empowers countless women who are the backbone of their families around the world by increasing funding for family planning programs, reversing the President's disastrous global gag rule, and contributing $55.5 million to the United Nations Population Fund.

Robust funding is included for counter-narcotics and law enforcement efforts in Colombia, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.

This bill also ensures that the funding provided goes to the right people--the right people, Mr. Speaker--instead of the corrupt officials that undermine democracy and misuse U.S. aid. This is especially important given the recent report regarding corruption in the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala and Honduras.

And, finally, the last part of this bill that I would like to highlight is what we are doing to invest in our energy and water infrastructure.

The bill rejects the President's shortsighted proposed cuts to key energy and water programs and, instead, invests $46.6 billion to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, build the next generation of clean energy technologies, and combat the urgent threat that is climate change.

This is a good bill. This is a bill that should be signed into law, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule so that we can get back to regular order and avoid another costly shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to remind my colleague that I also serve on the Appropriations Committee, and we had a very open and transparent process. Every subcommittee invited all Members to come before us to present their ideas or their requests to the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. We have also supported 95 percent of the written requests from all Members.

So to say that it was not transparent and that Members did not have an opportunity to come before and present their ideas is incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is tiring to hear from so many * * * males on this floor talk about a woman's right to choose.

Mr. Speaker, if it pleases my colleague on the other side, I will withdraw my statement about sex-starved males on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I will agree to withdraw my statement regarding----

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my statement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will put it in different terms. It is tiring to be here on this floor or in committee as a woman and to continue to be counseled about what types of affordable planning, whether it is family planning, conversations that rightfully I deserve to have with my own doctor.

Choosing when women want to have a family and to avoid pregnancies before they become pregnancies, it is unfortunate that that is something that continues to be denied to American women day in and day out on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, contraception for women is not something that should be debated here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal- Allard) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I will not. I will not yield for that purpose, and all time yielded is for the purpose of debate and debate only.

Mr. Speaker, I will not yield.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to remind my colleagues why we are here today. We are considering a bill that provides $7.97 billion in humanitarian assistance, a 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops, $1.9 billion for the Job Corps, $41.1 billion for mental health, for Alzheimer's research, HIV/AIDS, cancer research, and others.

I agree that we need to address the humanitarian situation at the border, and Democrats have been saying this for a very long time. We said so when crying toddlers were being torn apart from their mother's arms. We said so when children were being put in cages. We said so when children were being drugged. We said so when children were being sexually abused.

I visited those facilities. I saw the tragedy with my own eyes. HHS needs an influx of funds, and we cannot wait until this bill is enacted.

In the coming weeks, we will consider the administration's request for a supplemental appropriations bill. That supplemental, not the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill, is the appropriate place to deal with this year's ORR funding. That is not just because we can't wait for the annual appropriations process to be completed; it is also because we have concerns about how ORR is managing some of those shelters.

With all the abuses that have come to light, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with us that we need to have more oversight, additional oversight over these facilities.

Most importantly, this amendment increases and decreases the same account. It is not an actual effect. The children deserve more than a messaging amendment. They deserve better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while we may not agree on everything, I do want to thank my colleague from Georgia for his participation in this process. I hope we can agree that getting back to regular order is the right thing to do, not for Democrats and not for Republicans, but for the American people.

Congress cannot write a blank check and allow children on our southern border to continue to be abused while they are in our custody. We need transparency, we need accountability. Members of Congress need to be able to go and inspect these facilities without being denied entry.

On the issue of participation among Members of Congress through this process of appropriations, I want to state once again that ideas are absolutely welcome. However, the Appropriations Committee chairwoman cannot order Members to participate in the process. We can set up meetings and we can invite them to come and participate, and many did. They presented their ideas, they presented their requests for funding for their districts, and, guess what, 95 percent of those requests were agreed upon through a process of mitigating.

Now, if I was writing this appropriations bill myself, it would look very different. If my colleague from Georgia was writing this appropriations bill himself, it would look very different. He and I both know that. But our commitment is not to our personal agendas. Our commitment is to the rule of law, is to democracy, and is to the American people, our constituents, who sent us here to represent them.

The underlying legislation is a strong bill that is the result of good, hard work by Members of both sides of the aisle. It is about time that the House of Representatives got back to doing the business of the people in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation, as I discuss the defense portion of this bill, to my ranking member, Mr. Calvert. He has made it easy to continue the collegiality, transparency, and bipartisanship that is a hallmark of the Defense Subcommittee. He is a wonderful partner.

I also do want to express my gratitude to Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, and the other members of the subcommittee and full committee for their efforts. I want to also thank the staff. This legislation would not be possible without their outstanding effort.

At this time, I would like to highlight some of the elements of this legislation that deal with the well-being and morale of those in uniform.

The bill provides a 3.1 percent pay raise for our women and men in uniform. This is the largest increase in basic pay since 2010. The report expresses, however, support for a 3.1 percent pay increase for DOD civilian employees as well.

We rely on DOD civilians to work side by side with military personnel. The administration's refusal to request an increase in pay for Federal employees devalues the important work done by these public servants. Congress must rectify this failure.

I believe that access to affordable and quality childcare is vital to retention for All-Volunteer Forces, particularly for mid-career personnel. Thousands of military children are waitlisted for childcare development centers, and I am disappointed that the services have failed to meaningfully address this serious problem. To get at the backlog, the bill provides an additional $70.7 million for upgrades to military childcare facilities.

The pervasiveness of sexual assault amongst servicemembers is deeply abhorrent. It is disheartening that the most recent report on this subject shows that sexual assaults across the U.S. military increased by a rate of 38 percent last year, with over two-thirds of assaults going unreported.

The bill provides $297.2 million for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response programs at the service level, $13.5 million above the fiscal year 2019-enacted level. It also provides an additional $35 million for the Special Victims Counsel and $3 million for the Sexual Trauma Response and Treatment pilot program.

The bill provides $1.26 billion for environmental restoration activities, which is $188 million above the current request.

There are also several actions taken in the bill that I believe are important to highlight as an appropriator and as a member of the legislative branch.

In recent years, the Department has viewed report language as suggestive and, on several occasions, has taken action in contravention of it or simply ignored congressional direction in the report. It is unacceptable, and it must stop. Report language is directive; it is not permissive.

I would also point out that the budget justifications should be complete in detail. In many instances, they continue to be lacking.

For example, there was a $72 million request to establish a Space Force, but the Department was unable to answer basic questions about the structure of the force, nor could they provide detailed long-term costs.

Another example would be the proposed reorganization of the Military Health System. In its 2020 request, the Department requested a significant amount of money for the reorganization and proposed major reductions in healthcare billets. Yet, it could not answer basic questions about how the reorganization would affect servicemembers and beneficiaries.

This legislation also takes steps to return to balance the relationship between the executive and legislative branches in response to the administration's unconstitutional use of dollars appropriated for the military to fund the construction of a wall on our southern border. If Congress appropriates funds for a designated and authorized purpose, it is not lawful for those funds to be used in contravention of the law.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to Mr. Calvert and the members of our subcommittee, as well as our wonderful staff for their exceptional work, dedication, and long hours.

I look forward to the debate on our amendments.

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by expressing appreciation to Ranking Member Calvert. He has made it easy to continue the collegiality, transparency, and bipartisanship that is the hallmark of the Defense Subcommittee.

I also would like to express my gratitude to Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, and the other Members of the Subcommittee for their efforts. And thank you to the Subcommittee staff, particularly the clerks, Becky Leggieri and Leslie Albright, as well as Walter Hearne, Brooke Boyer, Ariana Sarar, Jackie Ripke, David Bortnick, Matt Bower, Bill Adkins, Jennifer Chartrand, Hayden Milberg, Paul Kilbride, Shannon Richter, Sherry Young, Kyle McFarland, Johnnie Kaberle, Kiya Batmanglidj, and Jamie McCormick. I would also like to acknowledge the personal office staff, Joe DeVooght, Preston Rackauskas, Rebecca Keightley, and Christopher Romero. This legislation would not be possible without their outstanding effort.

The bill would provide $690.2 billion for the Department of Defense, which is $15.8 billion above the fiscal year 2019 enacted level and $8 billion below the request. The base funding recommendation is $622.1 billion, which is $15.6 billion above the fiscal year 2019 enacted level and $88.2 billion above the request. The overseas contingency operations recommendation is $68.1 billion, which is $165 million above the fiscal year 2019 enacted level and $96.2 billion below the request.

This bill supports the Department of Defense's effort to align its resources with the National Defense Strategy. This strategy redirects the Department's primary focus toward the challenges posed by great powers such as

China and Russia, and their efforts to counter and challenge the technological and operational superiority long enjoyed by the United States military. This technological overmatch can no longer be assumed, and this bill provides funding to develop and field new weapon systems and capabilities to address these new challenges. To support this forward-looking posture, the bill makes major investments in procurement and research and development.

Rather than focus my remarks on those investments, which have been detailed in several documents released by the Committee to the public, I am instead going to run through some of the efforts in this legislation that deal with the well-being and morale of those in uniform, their families, DoD civilians, and defense communities.

The bill provides a 3.1 percent pay raise for our women and men in uniform. This is the largest increase in basic pay since 2010 and maintains the Committee's commitment to ensuring our all-volunteer force is compensated for their sacrifices.

The report expresses support for a 3.1 percent pay increase for DoD civilian employees. We rely on DoD civilians to work side-by-side with military personnel to provide medical care for our troops, to perform vital logistics, maintenance, acquisition, and other essential services. The Administration's refusal to request an increase in pay for federal employees devalues the important work done by these public servants and I hope this Congress will ultimately rectify that in this year's appropriations measures.

I believe that access to affordable and quality childcare is vital to retention in the all-volunteer force, particularly for mid-career enlisted and officers. Thousands of military children, including over 9,000 whose parents serve in the Navy, are waitlisted for Childcare Development Centers. I am disappointed that with such demonstrated need the military services' requests for childcare facilities were relatively unchanged from prior years. To get at this backlog, the bill provides an additional $70. 7 million for upgrades to military childcare facilities, which is complementary to an effort included in the FY20 Military Construction Appropriation measure to accelerate the construction of new Childcare Development Centers.

The pervasiveness of sexual assault amongst service members is deeply abhorrent and it is disheartening that the most recent report on the subject shows that sexual assaults across the U.S. military increased by a rate of nearly 38 percent in 2018, with over two-thirds of assaults going unreported, The bill provides $297.2 million for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response programs at the Service level, $13.5 million above the FY19 enacted level and equal to the request. It also provides an additional $35 million for Special Victims Counsel for victims of sexual assault and $3 million for a Sexual Trauma Treatment Pilot Program for treatment of members of the Armed Forces for PTSD Related to Military Sexual Trauma.

The bill provides $1.26 billion for environmental restoration activities, which is $188 million above the request. This includes $13 million for a nationwide health study on the implications of PFOS/PFOA at former and current domestic military installations. Further, the report directs the Department to achieve a drinking water cleanup standard equal to or better than the EPA health advisory level for federally controlled sites and surrounding communities whose water sources were contaminated because of Department activities.

I believe these efforts and several others within the bill will have an immediate positive impact on people's quality of life.

There are also several actions taken in the bill that I believe are important to highlight as an Appropriator and a Member of the Legislative Branch.

In recent years, the Department has viewed report language as suggestive, and on several occasions has taken actions in direct contravention or simply ignored Congressional direction in the report. That is unacceptable and must stop. Report language is directive, not permissive.

For example, in FY19 the Committee Report expressed significant displeasure with the inadequate budget justification by the Department of Defense. There have been improvements in certain areas, but a number of major proposals put forth by the DoD in the FY20 budget were incredibly lacking in detail. For example, there was a $72 million request to establish a Space Force, but the Department was unable to answer basic questions about the structure of the force, nor could the detail long-term costs. Because of that uncertainty, the Committee only provides $15 million for Space Force.

Another example would be the proposed reorganization of the Military Health System. This reorganization was mandated in the 2017 Defense Authorization Act. In its FY20 request the Department requested a significant amount of money for the reorganization and proposed a major reduction in healthcare billets. Yet it could not answer basic questions about how the reorganization would affect service members and beneficiaries. Of particular concern to the Committee were impacts to pediatrics, maternity care, and mental health. The legislation halts the reorganization until those questions can be answered.

Further, this legislation takes several steps to return to balance the relationship between the Executive and Legislative Branch, in response to the Administration's unconstitutional use of dollars appropriated for the military to fund the construction of the wall on the southern border. The Constitution gives the Congress the power of the purse. And if Congress appropriates funds for a designated and authorized purpose, it is not lawful for those funds to be used in contravention of that direction.

Specifically, the bill reduces the amount of money the Department can move between accounts by 75 percent from the FY 2019 levels. This reduction leaves the Department with $1.5 billion in general transfer authority, which allows for the meeting of urgent and emergent military requirements. The legislation also increases the notification requirements and requires additional detail be provided to Congress in order for the Department to reprogram funding or start a new program. These are not actions that were taken lightly, but are absolutely necessary in order to allow Congress to carry out its Article I responsibilities.

Finally, I feel compelled to spend a moment discussing the issue that has been an albatross around this Committee's neck since August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act (BCA). In past years, I have bemoaned the sheer lunacy of the BCA and how it has made this Committee's work that much more difficult. Unfortunately, that dynamic remains until Congress and the President come together and find a solution to the BCA caps for FY20 and FY21. I understand that this is not a simple matter. However, I fail to see the benefit from delaying the conversation any longer.

In closing, I would like to again reiterate my thanks to Members and staff that logged the long hard hours required to put this product together and I look forward to debate on the amendments.