Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chair, I rise reluctantly in opposition to H.R. 3055, and but let me say that I appreciate the efforts of the majority in producing the fiscal year 2020 appropriations package that we will be considering today.

As my colleague from New York referred to, this bill does address many priorities and concerns of Members on both sides of the aisle and, certainly, those of us from the Republican side of the aisle. Mr. Chair, we do appreciate that.

I am pleased that the bill provides critical resources for our world- class space program. It funds NASA at levels necessary to work toward the completion of the Space Launch System and the Exploration Upper Stage, and it provides strong funding to continue developing deep-space exploration technologies.

This bill also includes important funding for our Federal law enforcement components and valuable support for our law enforcement partners back home. These resources will help eliminate the sexual assault kit backlog. It will support drug courts and other vital initiatives to address the opioid crisis and help put an end to human trafficking.

The Commerce, Justice, Science bill that is a part of this package is a testament to the commitment that Chairman Serrano made to work together. As he referred to earlier, we worked very closely together. While we may not have agreed on everything that is in this bill, there was a lot that we could agree on.

Let me add that I also appreciate the majority's attention to rural development matters when crafting the Agriculture appropriations bill. I am particularly appreciative of the continued robust funding for the rural broadband program and for what now-Chairman Bishop and I worked on together to draft in the last Congress.

Yet, the fact that there are programs in this bill deserving strong support does not negate the need for fiscal accountability. Unfortunately, the bills

in this package have been written to an irresponsible top-line number.

The Commerce, Justice, Science bill alone, for example, includes a $7.5 billion adjustment for the 2020 Census plus an additional $2.3 billion above the fiscal year 2019-enacted level. It is money that the Department of Commerce says it does not need.

I stand willing to work with the majority in good faith because if we are to avoid more continuing resolutions or even a protracted government shutdown and sequestration, we need to come together in a bipartisan fashion, along with the administration, to agree on a realistic top-line funding level.

Finally, I still have many unaddressed concerns with this bill.

The bill lacks additional funding requested for NASA for the purpose of establishing a permanent U.S. space presence on and around the Moon within the next decade.

The bill also contravenes existing law by funding lawyers for the individuals who are here on our southern border without documentation.

Also, it prohibits the Justice Department from using performance metrics to measure immigration judge productivity. Let's be honest: An immigration court system with a docket approaching 900,000 cases and no appreciable case completion goal is a system devised for those who do not have a lawful right to remain in this country.

In addition, the bill eliminates several longstanding Second Amendment protections that have enjoyed historical, bipartisan support throughout the years.

The bill also prohibits the Census Bureau from including a question just merely on citizenship in the 2020 Census.

In closing, again, I thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger for their hard work and that of their staff. Certainly, I thank Chairman Serrano for his dedication and hard work on behalf of the appropriations process and the United States of America.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana.

NASA's plan for facilities to support our human exploration mission is not sufficient, because nothing is more important than keeping our American astronauts alive and safe on these exploration missions.

We will continue to support robust funding for NASA exploration. The funding that is mentioned here, which is part of the SLS Orion and related ground system programs, is critical and supports multiple NASA facilities and personnel, and it even allows NASA engineers to assist commercial space companies with complex engineering challenges.

I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment, Madam Chair, and NASA's exploration programs.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment.

I thank Chairwoman Lowey and Chairman Serrano for working with our side of the aisle, including many provisions that are important to many of our Members here on the Republican side.

Included in this en bloc group of amendments are several NASA and science-related items that I wholeheartedly support.

Congressman Babin's amendment enables the Office of Space Commerce and the Office, Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs to better assist American companies to be globally competitive, while still retaining necessary requirements for consultation with relevant agencies.

Representative Foster's amendment emphasizes the need for NASA to move towards a demonstration stage of using safe, low-enriched uranium for power on the Moon and in space, including thermal nuclear propulsion to Mars.

Madam Chair, I appreciate Chairman Serrano's decision to offer this bipartisan en bloc amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Unfortunately, there is a campaign that seems to be of fear that surrounds this citizenship question. It really should be an educational campaign.

I would just like to reiterate some important facts about the Census itself.

The proposed question regarding citizenship status only asks if a respondent is a citizen, as has already been pointed out. It does not ask if the respondent is here lawfully or not.

Also, a person's response, if they are not a citizen, does not provide the government with any reliable information about whether they are lawfully present in the U.S.

Furthermore, by law, the Census Bureau cannot, and it will not, disclose anyone's sponsor or share data from which any individual can be identified by ICE or any other Federal agency.

Fortunately, the Census Bureau is deploying expert communicators and trusted messengers to conduct local outreach in hard-to-count communities and motivate each and every person to respond to the Census.

A successful 2020 Census will provide a full and accurate and a secure account of every person who is living in the United States, while gathering the data vital to both understanding our Nation's changing demographics and bolstering enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

The citizenship question does not threaten anyone. The bill includes the outreach sources needed to make this fact abundantly clear to everyone. Inclusion of this provision will only serve to sow more confusion and to make the allocation of the 2020 Census more difficult.

For those reasons, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of this amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Florida. It is in human nature to explore.

Wernher von Braun and his team in Huntsville, Alabama, designed the rockets that took us to the Moon. The Marshall Space Flight Center which is just north of the district I represent in Alabama, put the shuttle through full-scale stress tests as part of its safety certification. Now, the Space Launch System rocket, the most powerful rocket in the world, is 80 percent assembled.

With Orion on top--the capsule which allows deep space exploration-- the SLS will launch from Cape Canaveral.

As we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon, we further honor it by pushing ahead with the SLS mission, which will land the first female American astronaut on the Moon's surface.

Madam Chairwoman, I urge support of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, as I mentioned, I do rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. The U.S. Marshals Service's Federal Prisoner Detention account supports detention of all who are remanded to the custody of the Attorney General ahead of trial or sentencing.

Of the largest segments of the average daily population of 61,000, 31 percent are held on drug charges; 24 percent are held on immigration charges; and 14 percent on firearm charges.

Moreover, the detention of individuals for these offenses is on the rise. The U.S. Marshals Service cannot afford to see this account reduced by this magnitude. There are some dangerous offenders out there. Again, I think this is an important program, but I don't think it is in the best interest to pull this money from the United States Marshals Service, and, therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition. I am opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to my good friend from Michigan's amendment.

As I said, there are some issues here that I think we do need to make clear. The amendment would reverse the July 2017 order from Attorney General Sessions, which included safeguards to ensure such adoptions are legal and conform to Department of Justice policy.

Adoptions allow the Federal Government to recover funds that are proceeds of or that are connected to Federal crimes but where property happens to be discovered by local law enforcement.

Moreover, this type of Federal and local cooperation fosters important collaboration between agents and officers. We should not return hastily to the Obama administration policy, but rather continue to review carefully the practice of forfeiture adoption as part of a broader discussion of asset forfeiture reform.

Violent crimes, gangs, and drug trafficking are a growing and continuing problem. We should not take away a tool from law enforcement that it needs to combat criminal groups and make our streets safer.

Madam Chair, I recommend a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. This proposal would prevent Federal law enforcement from enforcing current law and from protecting public health and ensuring community safety.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, the Drug Enforcement Administration defines schedule I drugs as having no current acceptable medical use and a high potential for abuse. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there is no scientifically recognized medical benefit from smoking or eating marijuana plants.

Claims of benefits from smoked or ingested marijuana are anecdotal and generally outright fabrications. It is established by fact that such marijuana use has real health and real social harms.

This is true especially for young children with developing brains and those with impaired physical conditions as well as psychological conditions. New data shows crime and health problems from marijuana use and trafficking in particular in States that decriminalize its use.

This amendment that is before us sends the wrong message about widely abused drugs in the United States. The Drug Enforcement Administration says more young people receive treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol and other illegal drugs combined. The amendment ignores the problems with abuse and sends the false message to youth that smoking marijuana is healthy.

Mr. Chair, I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I do rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I appreciate his work on behalf of domestic manufacturing.

This amendment would highlight the importance of the Department of Commerce antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations and the threat posed to American businesses from foreign companies selling products to the U.S. at less than fair value, commonly known as dumping, as well as the threat of imported goods from foreign countries that benefit from financial assistance from a foreign government in the form of a counter-vailable subsidy.

This amendment would also encourage better utilization of resources to self-initiate these investigations, pursuant to U.S. law.

Although most antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations are initiated following a petition on behalf of an industry alleging injurious dumping and/or unfair subsidy of imports into the U.S., antidumping and countervailing duty investigations can be self- initiated by the Department of Commerce from information that is made available.

The self-initiation of antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations is an important tool in cases where a U.S. industry consists of small companies or is fractured and the members of that industry cannot meet the threshold necessary to file a petition.

The United States needs to strongly enforce our trade laws and not allow our domestic manufacturing capacity to be degraded in the face of unfair trade practices that hurt American employers, workers, and communities.

These investigations are crucial. They are important tools in the effort to ensure a level playing field that allows our businesses and our industries to compete.

Mr. Chair, I think this is a good amendment. I ask that my colleagues support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I actually rise in strong support of this amendment. I certainly understand the concerns about potential misuse of Census data. Thankfully, misusing Census data is a felony. It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and by a $250,000 fine.

Put another way, by law, the Census Bureau cannot disclose anyone's responses or share data from which an individual can be identified, by ICE or any other Federal agency. That is in current law.

So I join my colleague in opposing the use of any funds that would be made available to violate the confidentiality laws that govern our Census.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chair, if a Member quotes a reference to a newspaper that impugns the character of a Cabinet official, does that violate the House rules?

Mr. Chair, as the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I would like to talk about the fiscal year 2020 Commerce, Justice, Science bill, which is contained in division A of the minibus.

The budget proposed by the Trump administration for the agencies in this bill was totally inadequate. The President proposed eliminating a large number of programs that Members on both sides of the aisle strongly support.

Thankfully, with an allocation of $73.895 billion, this subcommittee was able to address these problems and to invest in the future of our Nation.

This legislation makes significant investments in justice reform, economic development, and the science agencies. We increased funding for programs and research focused on climate change, as well as for efforts to address gun violence and to implement the 2020 Census.

Let me highlight a few issues.

In order to address the ongoing challenges faced by the Census Bureau leading up to next year's decennial Census, this bill provides $8.45 billion for the Census Bureau, of which more than 90 percent directly funds the 2020 Census. This amount is $2.3 billion above the administration's very inadequate request.

In addition, this legislation carries language that prevents funding from being used to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census form.

This bill also rejects the administration's proposed cuts to climate change programs. We provide over $2 billion for NASA Earth Science, a significant increase over fiscal year 2019, as well as a 17 percent increase for NOAA climate research activities. Significant increases are also included for NOAA programs that address the impacts of climate change.

To address the epidemic of gun violence in our Nation, this bill increases funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by $122 million over fiscal year 2019. We also provide $80 million for grants to help improve firearms background checks and $125 million for school safety grants authorized by the STOP School Violence Act.

To ensure our Nation's science agencies have the resources needed to continue our leadership in research and innovation, this bill adds substantial funding to NASA, the National Science Foundation, and NIST.

The bill also includes strong funding increases for economic development activities and infrastructure improvements in hard-hit rural and urban areas--in particular, for the Economic Development Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency.

We also provide large increases for the Legal Services Corporation, the Violence Against Women Act, opioid reduction initiatives, and the First Step Act, among many others.

In sum, there is a lot in this bill that both sides support, from science to economic development to justice reform.

I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to put this bill together and to manage the amendments offered on the majority staff. I thank our clerk, Bob Bonner, as well as Jeff Ashford, B.G. Wright, Matt Smith, Shannon McCully, T.J. Lowdermilk, and Trisha Castaneda. And on the minority side, I thank Stephanie Gadbois and Kristin Richmond. I also thank, on my personal staff, Marcus Garza, Angel Nigaglioni, and Matt Alpert.

I want to take a moment to say that, as you will hear, we don't always agree, Mr. Aderholt and I, but it has been a pleasure working with him in the tradition of the Appropriations Committee, which tries to find common ground.

I know that even if he tells you that he doesn't like the bill, there is a lot in here that he likes. So I am looking for maybe a ``maybe'' vote from him.

I also thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ms. Granger. It has been said before, but it hasn't been said by me, that we make history every day in this House, and what a historic moment it is that the ranking member and chairwoman are both women. That is the first time in history.

I think this is a good bill that envisions the people and priorities of this Nation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, my primary objection with the gentleman's amendment is with the offset. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, is not very well known by the American people, but it is quite important.

The NTIA is critical to the deployment of 5G wireless network technology around the country, which is an expressed goal of the majority of Members on both sides of the aisle, as well as the White House.

Additionally, NTIA is working to expand FirstNet, which ensures cell phone connectivity for our first responders in disaster scenarios.

This amendment would cut NTIA's budget by 8 percent. For all these important programs to continue, NTIA's role as the policy leader in the area of cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and data privacy, I cannot support a big cut to this budget.

Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Scalise

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, I offer amendments en bloc, which are at the desk.

Madam Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule. I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendments en bloc.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule and have been agreed to by both sides. I support the amendments and urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Madam Chair, I support the amendment and urge its adoption. I hope everyone votes for it, and I yield back the balance of my time

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the inclusion of the citizenship question was a unilateral decision by Secretary Ross last year. Secretary Ross chose to overrule recommendations from nonpartisan experts at the Census Bureau and ignore the potential impacts, including those the question would have on response rates to the Census, without rigorous testing and analysis.

Even more recently, additional evidence on the other side's attempts to abuse the Census in an effort to gerrymander districts has come to light. Files recently discovered from a Republican redistricting specialist revealed that the citizenship question would result in a structural electoral advantage for Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.

The Voting Rights Act enforcement excuse the Republicans lean on is nothing more than a ruse and their solution in search of what they view as a problem.

It is unfortunate that they have turned to the Census to play this political game to undermine the American people.

Most changes to the Census undergo years of testing and analysis before being added to the decennial Census form. The reason we have that process is to better understand the impact a change can have on the response rate and accuracy of the Census. It allows for the Bureau to better plan and adjust its operational and outreach strategies.

Census is only testing the impact of the question this summer with results anticipated in October, after critical milestones have passed. The administration leaves no time for the Census to mitigate the potential impact of what they may find.

Wilbur Ross refused to listen to the expert advice of advocates and experts at the Bureau who did not recommend adding an untested question so late in the process.

Additionally, there is no doubt that including this question will have a serious negative impact on the self-response rate of the Census. People would simply choose not to respond to the Census form, and the Bureau will be forced to engage in expensive, in-person follow-up that was not originally assumed in their cost estimate.

This should not be an issue that divides us. It should not matter whether you live in a red or blue State or whether you represent an urban or rural district. The question will impact everyone.

This amendment will reduce the accuracy and increase the undercount in places like Florida, Texas, Alabama, Michigan, California, and New York. This, in turn, will affect reapportionment and the distribution of Federal funds for the next decade in many of the communities we represent.

We can and should do better. Our Constitution is clear. It requires that we count all persons every 10 years.

In conclusion, the issue is very simple: If you represent a community that will be undercounted by this question, then you should oppose the amendment. If you support the strict interpretation of the Constitution, then you should also oppose this amendment.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the gentleman is correct: There is a campaign of fear, but it is not by what we are doing here. It is what Wilbur Ross wanted to do.

The Constitution is clear. Count all the people: not the Whites, not the Blacks, not the Hispanics, not women, not men, Republicans or Democrats--all the people.

And so it is really strange to me that people in many districts that do not support our position are not yelling. After all, you may not like undocumented people in your district, but they, if they get counted, bring more Federal dollars, allow for more redistricting properly. So why would you oppose that?

Let us speak to the Constitution.

Yes, there is a campaign of fear, and it was fear to try to put into people who were undocumented to say: We are going to ask you your citizenship. Although we are not supposed to ask you that, we are going to ask you that, and maybe that will turn you away from filling out the form, which is what will happen, and we will not get an accurate count.

Lastly, it is in everyone's interest in this country to get an accurate count.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time the other side has remaining.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Madam Chair, I commend the gentleman and his cosponsors on this amendment, highlighting July 20, 1969, the 50th anniversary of the United States landing a man on the Moon.

I have no opposition to the amendment.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson).

Madam Chair, I urge bipartisan support and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment is consistent with the trend in recent years to acknowledge that States, D.C., and the territories are taking charge of their marijuana policy.

I urge that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment, if adopted, would pose serious risks to our economic and national security. It would undermine our efforts to help create jobs, address the deadly opioid crisis, and increase critical scientific research and legal services for underserved communities.

A 14 percent decrease would, for the Department of Commerce, close over 30 foreign commercial service posts and 10 domestic field offices and lead to the dismissal of hundreds of Commerce personnel who support and create U.S. jobs by leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses in overseas markets; cut over $1 billion from the U.S. Census Bureau, which undermines the Census Bureau's ability to invest in critical information technology infrastructure to safeguard Census data as it moves to an online platform; and limit Census' flexibility to conduct important outreach and follow-up activities in hard-to-count communities, including rural parts of the country.

This amendment would also cause massive cuts in an array of agencies and programs critical to national security, anticrime efforts, and the constitutionally required 2020 Census. It would slash funding for efforts to create jobs, fix aging infrastructure, and respond to the reality of climate change.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, very briefly, in closing, we get folks on the

floor who tell us how much money we have to cut from the budget, from the appropriations, but they really never take time to ask their constituents how they feel about new roads, about hospital help, about education, about climate change, about other issues. You would be surprised how many people who may not scream out in support or against a certain amendment would feel the pain of our cutbacks and would not be for them. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment.

The Commerce Department has illustrated that it requires additional oversight. This increase to the inspector general will restore critical positions that will provide transparency to Congress on what Secretary Ross is up to.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, today I rise in support of my straightforward, commonsense amendment, which will increase funding for veterans treatment court programs and help ensure that veterans have access to the resources they deserve to successfully reintegrate into their communities.

As a Nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that the brave men and women who are wounded, either physically or psychologically, in service to our Nation receive the care that they deserve.

Veterans treatment courts do just that by assisting veterans involved in the criminal justice system who are experiencing post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, sexual trauma, mental health symptoms, or substance abuse as a result of their military service.

Studies show that these programs work. Through a coordinated system of treatment, community support, and peer-to-peer mentorship, they are able to reduce recidivism and increase participating veterans' overall quality of life.

Through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the DOJ provides local court systems with the financial and technical assistance they need to develop and implement their own treatment courts.

My amendment would increase funding for this program by $2 million so that Federal assistance is available to more courts like those in Beaufort or the recently established program in Charleston.

This is particularly important to the Lowcountry, because my district has one of the highest concentrations of veterans in the country. As their representative in Congress, I have made it my mission to ensure that they have the support that they have earned.

Mr. Chair, I want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting my amendment as well as the underlying legislation.

Mr. Chair, in closing, I would like to thank Chairman Serrano and the members of the subcommittee for their work in constructing this important legislation which will allow us to make strides towards addressing gun violence, supporting law enforcement, and investing in important scientific research. I also want to thank Chairman McGovern and my colleagues on the Rules Committee for allowing this important amendment to come to the floor.

Mr. Chair, to ensure that veteran treatment courts in the Lowcountry and across the country can continue to provide this essential service to our Nation's veterans, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my straightforward, commonsense amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that blocks all fiscal year 2020 funding for NOAA to approve seismic air gun blasting in the Atlantic. These approvals are called Incidental Harassment Authorizations, or IHAs.

In order for companies to receive permits for seismic exploration from BOEM, they must first have authorization through NOAA to conduct activities that harm or disturb marine mammals, such as whales.

NOAA issued five IHAs in November of last year, which are currently being challenged in court in South Carolina by 10 States, 16 towns, and various conservation and business groups. If the judge finds these IHAs unlawful, my amendment would prevent NOAA from reauthorizing these approvals for seismic air gun blasting in the Atlantic.

Additionally, my amendment would prevent NOAA from approving new applications for seismic surveys that would expose marine mammals to one of the loudest man-made noises in the oceans today.

Seismic air guns create an underwater blast louder than all but military-grade explosives. Companies fire air guns as often as every 10 seconds for days, weeks, sometimes even months on end. This can have impacts

across the entire ecosystem, from marine mammals, to fish, to plankton.

In addition to being harmful in its own right, seismic blasting is a key step towards this administration's ultimate goal: bringing drilling rigs to the South Carolina coast and elsewhere up and down the Atlantic seaboard.

Offshore drilling activities anywhere in the Atlantic Ocean are a threat to hardworking Americans, coastal economies, and abundant marine life. And communities up and down the coast have made it very clear where they stand on this issue. They don't want drilling off their coasts and they don't want seismic exploration for oil and gas resources.

My amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill can help protect the Atlantic Coast from a future of expanded offshore drilling and unnecessary, unwanted seismic testing.

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

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Moulton, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise again because there is no time to waste when it comes to protecting the North Atlantic right whale, a species whose calving and migratory grounds are right off the coast of my district.

By even the most generous estimates, there are fewer than 420 right whales left in the ocean. Without immediate Federal action, the right whale could become extinct in the next two decades.

Humans have killed nearly every right whale in existence through our direct and indirect actions over the past two centuries.

Today we are at a crossroads. We have a choice. We can be the generation that saves the right whale or the generation that allows their extinction. We can act right now by adopting this amendment. It will provide targeted investments so we can better understand how both right whales and East Coast economies can thrive.

This is a unique opportunity. Few people in the history of the Earth have had the ability to help a species survive. In fact, the opposite is true. From the passenger pigeon to the western black rhinoceros, humans have driven the extinction of iconic species through centuries of choices.

It is a choice to hunt the right whale to near extinction. It is a choice to jeopardize the right whale by drilling off our coast or harmful seismic air gun blasting. And tonight it is a choice to protect the right whale and the hundreds of thousands of jobs up and down the East Coast that rely on the healthy ecosystem that the right whale creates.

Let's be the generation of leaders that chooses to bring the right whale back from the brink.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their support on this issue. I want to single out my friend from across the aisle Mr. Rutherford, as well as Mr. Huffman and Mr. Grijalva for their leadership on this issue at the Natural Resources Committee. I also want to thank Mr. Moulton for the opportunity to offer this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, our appropriations chairman, for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3055. As the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am pleased to highlight the national priorities that are funded in this bill.

First, I would like to thank our ranking member, Mr. Fortenberry. He shares a deep passion for rural and farm communities that he so eloquently communicates often through stories of his childhood and his family. It has been a true pleasure to get to know Mr. Fortenberry better during this process. We have had many frank discussions about the priorities in our bill, and he has made it very easy to continue the bipartisan spirit of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

I also want to thank the members of the subcommittee, both majority and minority, for a thoughtful and collaborative effort. None of this, of course, would be possible without the outstanding work of the subcommittee and full committee staffs, and our personal staffs, so I give accolades to all of them.

Few people may recognize the far-reaching jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, from food safety and agriculture research to rural development and nutrition assistance. The programs in this division touch the lives of every citizen on a daily basis.

We rejected the administration's draconian cuts to programs that assist our rural communities and our vulnerable populations. The FY 2020 allocation for the agriculture bill is 4 percent above the FY 2019 enacted level and more than $5.1 billion above the budget request, totaling $24.3 billion.

There is over $38 billion in loans and grants for rural housing, community facilities, and water and wastewater infrastructure, including $680 million for broadband programs to continue bridging the digital divide between urban and rural America.

Additionally, during a time of great uncertainty due to tariffs, low commodity prices, and natural disasters, this bill provides $1.8 billion for farm programs, including $30 million to assist the implementation of the 2018 farm bill. It also prohibits the closure of county-level Farm Service Agency offices to ensure that our farmers, ranchers, and producers receive high quality customer service.

The bill includes $829 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service to maintain its core conservation mission. There is almost $167 million for infrastructure, for watershed and flood prevention, and watershed rehabilitation projects.

The bill provides $3.3 billion for agriculture research to ensure America retains its role as the leader of global agriculture science.

In addition, to protect the integrity of two of USDA's premier research agencies, the bill prohibits the use of funds for any relocation costs associated with USDA's proposal to move the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture outside of the national capital region.

We held a hearing at which four former senior officials from both parties with 70 years of combined experience at the two agencies expressed their deep opposition to this proposal. Countless other stakeholders wrote, called, and emailed their opposition, including the National Farmers Union, the Association of American Veterinary Colleges, the American Statistical Association, the National Coalition for Food and Agriculture Research, 104 agriculture science and food- related organizations, 24 university departments of agriculture and/or economics, 37 deans and provosts of university ag departments, and more than 1,500 individual scientists from 47 States.

The bill also rejects the proposed elimination of the Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole programs, and it provides increases for both of these programs. These programs send American commodities all over the world to address global hunger and are an essential tool for diplomacy.

The bill fully funds the SNAP and the WIC programs to meet expected participation in FY 2020. The bill provides $10 million for school breakfast expansion grants--the first time this program has been funded since 2012--and it funds the Summer EBT program at $50 million--a $22 million increase.

For the Food and Drug Administration, the bill provides $3.26 billion in discretionary funding, which is $185 million above FY 19. Increased funding is dedicated to fighting rare cancers, laying the foundation for more efficient generic drug reviews, improving our response to foodborne illness outbreaks, and the continued implementation of the Food Safety and Modernization Act.

The bill funds the Commodity Futures Trading Commission at $315 million, a historic, necessary, and long overdue increase.

I am pleased that this bill provides funding for several new programs that were authorized in the 2018 farm bill, such as the 1890s scholarship program, the Local Agriculture Market Program, and the Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach Program, to name a few.

I am pleased to say the bill makes significant investments in both Tribal communities and the U.S. territories.

In developing the bill, we tried to be responsive to as many Member requests as possible, and I am proud of the bipartisan bill we have produced.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues in this House to support it. It is a good bill.

Madam Chair, I thank Chairwoman Lowey for yielding and for her hard work and leadership during this entire legislative process.

The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies division of the bill highlights our continued commitment to our servicemembers and their families and to our veterans.

Constructing the barracks, bases, and facilities that our military needs and ensuring safe, adequate housing for military families is crucial to our Nation's military readiness.

Properly funding the Department of Veterans Affairs is how we deliver on the promise of medical care and other benefits that our veterans have earned through their service to our Nation.

The Related Agencies division, including the American Battle Monuments Commission and Arlington National Cemetery, demonstrate to the world how we honor the contributions and sacrifice of those who served.

That is why I am proud that this bill includes $108.4 billion in discretionary funding, $10.4 billion above the FY19 enacted level. For military construction, it provides $10.5 billion; and, for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the bill provides $94.3 billion in discretionary funding, a $7.7 billion increase above the FY19 enacted level and $1.3 billion above the FY20 budget request.

The bill we are considering today makes smart investments in critical projects and programs that make a real difference in the lives of servicemembers, veterans, and their families.

The bill includes an additional $140.8 million to address housing issues that have come up recently and have really festered for far too long, like mold, vermin, and lead, that really have devastated our military families and that must be corrected. This bill ensures there are the resources and the language in our report to ensure that the military makes sure that they are not leaving our military families to deal with the fallout over this disgusting situation on their own.

It provides $2.3 billion in emergency funding to address hurricane damage in North Carolina and my home State of Florida.

We have also put an additional $40 million toward energy resilience at our military bases and provided an additional $60 million to clean up PFOS and PFOA contamination at installations across the country.

For the VA, the bill will improve the quality of veterans' healthcare by making significant investments in women veterans' health.

I am proud to be the first woman in American history to chair this appropriations subcommittee, making sure that our women veterans actually know that they are veterans. And, in fact, I know it will come as a shock to most, as it was to me, that some women veterans don't even realize that, if they serve a couple of years, even if they didn't actually fight in a war zone or were deployed to a war zone, they are actually veterans, entitled to services at the VA.

Carving out, for the first time, gender-specific funding to make sure that we can provide healthcare services to our women veterans, do the proper outreach, and make sure that we bring our women veterans into the VA system and take care of them as they took care of representing our country, is essential.

The fastest rising group of veterans who are committing suicide are our women veterans, and we have to make sure that we are doing right by them.

We have a ``whole health'' model that we have funded, mental healthcare and suicide prevention, homelessness assistance, rural health, and, of course, opioid abuse prevention.

The bill also provides $1 billion for infrastructure improvements to ensure that the VA has modern, safe facilities to treat our veterans, as well as supporting continued implementation of the electronic health record and efforts to reduce the disability claims backlog.

Madam Chair, I am very proud of what this bill does, but I am also proud of what it does not do.

It does not fund a border wall, nor does it allow the President to go against clearly stated congressional intent and divert vital military construction funding from previously approved national security projects.

There is a lot of talk, Madam Chair, about commitment to our military in this body. There should be no question that funds should not be taken from vital, previously requested and approved military projects that are absolutely a higher priority than any border wall. In fact, Congress agreed to that very point on a bipartisan basis earlier this year after the longest shutdown in our Nation's history.

I will close by thanking all of my colleagues for their input on this bill. We are very proud, Judge Carter and I, that we were able to fund in our bill nearly all the bipartisan requests that we received. It made the bill better.

Before I yield back, I do want to thank my ranking member, Judge Carter, and Ranking Member Granger and Chairwoman Lowey. We worked very well together on the issues facing our military and our veterans.

While we may not always agree, I am proud to have Judge Carter as my partner. We have a lot of work left to do, and I appreciate the gentleman's insight into these issues.

I would also like to thank the staff of both the subcommittee and our personal offices whose expertise and commitment to our servicemembers and our veterans is evident every day. I won't name them because I am out of time, but they know who they are. We appreciate them so much.

Madam Chair, this is a good bill. I urge the Members' adoption of it.