H.Res. 445

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 445 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 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

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

Madam Speaker, I will be asking unanimous consent to make a technical correction to the rule. The page containing the text of an uncontroversial amendment, No. 64, to division B was inadvertently omitted from our 645-page report.

Modification Offered by Mr. McGovern

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I have placed at the desk be considered as though printed as amendment No. 123 in part B of House Report 116-119, if offered by Representative Lee from Nevada or her designee, and that the amendment be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

The Speaker pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his kindness.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 445. It provides for consideration of H.R. 3055 under a structured rule that makes 290 amendments in order. It also provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, this appropriations process represents a clean break from the way the Republicans ran this place. They furthered an agenda that was like Robin Hood in reverse, giving to the rich by stealing from the poor.

This Democratic majority has a radical idea that the people's House should, instead, work for the people, not the wealthy and the well- connected, but all Americans. You can see these values in the underlying appropriations measure.

We support SNAP, our Nation's premier anti-hunger program, by providing both stable funding and investments in the SNAP reserve fund. This will give a helping hand to many of the 40 million Americans who are struggling to put food on the table in America today.

That includes a lot of working families. It includes veterans. It includes seniors. It includes those who are disabled. Because the truth is, there is no plan B for many people who have fallen on hard times. Food pantries are important, but many are already stretched too thin and can't meet the demand.

We need to invest in SNAP. This program is a lifeline as families work to get back on their feet.

For the life of me, Madam Speaker, I don't understand why investing in SNAP has been a controversial subject for many of my colleagues on the other side, why some have demonized the poor and traded in stereotypes year after year.

On average, and I think it is important to make this clear for my colleagues, SNAP households receive about $259 a month. The average SNAP benefit per person is about $128 per month, which works out to just $1.40 per person per meal.

Madam Speaker, $1.40 can hardly buy a cup of coffee for someone, let alone a healthy, nutritious meal. That is what we are asking people to live on, and it is a shame. I hope, in the future, we can find a way to expand the SNAP benefit for those who are in need.

This bill also provides major funding to help stem the tide of opioid abuse, which is ravaging communities across the country, through grant programs that we know work, things like prescription drug monitoring, overdose-reversal drugs, and at-risk youth programs.

We are not waiting around for this administration's long-delayed transportation plan. The President has been rolling it out 2 weeks from now for the last 2 years. We have an infrastructure emergency in our country today. I have bridges in my district that are old enough to qualify for Medicare. Others are older than some of the other States in this country. It is the same old story all across the country.

That is why the American Society of Civil Engineers has given our Nation's infrastructure a D-plus. This is appalling, Madam Speaker. We owe a lot to those who built our roads and bridges a century ago, but we cannot expect them to last forever. H.R. 3055 would provide real funding now to rebuild crumbling infrastructure.

There are also badly needed investments here in our Nation's digital infrastructure because the sad reality is that in America today, 25 million people in rural communities don't have access to high-speed internet. Some are in my State.

Massachusetts has made significant strides in bringing high-speed internet to the rural parts of western and central Massachusetts, but there are still pockets where connectivity is still a problem.

This bill would fund an expansion of rural broadband services that would allow more kids to do homework at home, expand economic opportunities, and improve health outcomes. Affordable broadband should be available to everyone, regardless of their ZIP Codes.

This bill also helps combat the gun violence epidemic by increasing resources for programs that help reduce crime. This includes things like fully funding the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, making schools safer, and investing in mentoring programs for at-risk youth.

This follows language in last week's minibus appropriations bill that provided funding to research deaths and injuries caused by gun violence for the first time in more than 20 years because this majority isn't afraid to stand up to the NRA to protect the people we represent. We know the will of the American people is stronger than the might of the gun lobby.

There is also language in this bill that prohibits President Trump from

diverting important military construction projects to build his unnecessary border wall. This is a wall, by the way, that the President claimed time and time again that Mexico would pay for. Now he is using a bait-and-switch to force taxpayers to foot the bill.

This wall was preposterous when it was just a campaign talking point. It is even more absurd as an actual policy paid for by the taxpayers of this country.

These are just a few of our priorities in the bill. We are delivering on our promise to invest in the things that matter to people.

Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, the entire Appropriations Committee, and their staffs have done an extraordinary job. Their work deserves a great deal of praise by both the Democrats and Republicans. They are trying to fund our government in a timely way.

I don't know what the Senate is going to do on appropriations. They haven't done much of anything on anything so far.

But I do know this: These bills are an investment in our future. They are tailored toward providing opportunity for all Americans and delivering on our pledge to make this place work for them again.

Fixing our infrastructure, reducing gun violence, providing economic opportunity for small businesses, ending hunger, these are the kinds of things our constituents want us to address.

I urge all of my colleagues to show the American people that we are listening by voting for this rule. Let's keep bringing forward appropriations measures that truly represent the will of the taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy listening to the gentleman engage in debate, but I will say this, that when I look at this rule and all the amendments in order, I think I want to waive this rule because there are so many amendments that we are making in order here.

The gentleman, I appreciate his praise saying that we made a lot of good ideas in order, but I would say to the gentleman that he also made some bad ideas in order. The gentleman referred to his amendment, which I disagree with. But we also made amendments from other Republicans; I am looking at the rule here: Mr. Burgess, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Scalise, Mr. King, Mr. Posey, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Gosar, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Hudson, and Mrs. Walorski. I could go right through this and continue to read the Republican amendments that we made in order.

In the Rules Committee last night during the markup, my friends offered a number of amendments. Of the amendments they offered, nearly half of them violated House rules or were duplicative.

When people draft amendments in a way that legislate on appropriations bills or violate any of the House rules, it has been customary for Democrats and Republicans to not make them in order. We try to work with them to fix them, but last night, many of the amendments, including a Democratic amendment that the minority offered we could not vote for because it was not complying with the House rules.

I am sorry that that is the case, but people need to know that, when you are amending appropriations bills, you need to draft them in a way that is compliant with the House rules.

A lot of the amendments that were offered by my friends were the oldies but goodies. We have wall amendments, abortion amendments, and stuff that we have voted on time and time and time and time again; and I appreciate they want more time to vote on it, but we need to get our work done here.

As the gentleman referred to, there is a Member on the other side who has decided to have a little bit of a temper tantrum and call for a vote on every single amendment and try to invoke every single procedural measure so that everything is dragged out and moves at a snail's pace. That is his right. I don't think it is a particularly effective tactic, but if it makes him happy, he can do whatever he wants. He has that right to do that on the House floor.

I was in the minority in the last session, and I lived through the most closed Congress in the history of our country when the Republicans brought more bills to the floor that were completely closed and that were unamendable. Nobody could offer an idea. They did that more than any other Congress in history. So we are trying to do this better. I think we are, in many respects, doing it better, and we are going to continue in that spirit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), who is a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Maine an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, let me just address the issue of the Endangered Species Act that the gentleman referred to. It is not a ``Washington knows best'' and is certainly not a ``politicians know best'' approach. It is based on science, on available science, not on a special interest that is trying to get a different outcome.

If you don't believe in the direction of the act, if you don't believe that it should be adhered to, then the remedy is to introduce an alternative law. I would certainly vote against it, but the gentleman has a right to do that.

The Endangered Species Act already ensures there is public notice and public participation. There is an opportunity to comment on listing and delisting decisions.

It is our view that Congress should not interfere in the process outlined by the Endangered Species Act because it then becomes about politics--not science, but politics--and it should be science that determines the survival of a species.

I know science is a tough subject for my friends on the other side to deal with, because so many of them don't even believe that we have a climate crisis. But, in any event, I just wanted to respond.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman that this legislation contains the largest increase to combat Asian carp in years.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Iowa that we made in order last night one of his amendments related to the census question. And I strongly disagree with him on that. I hope we can defeat the amendment with a strong bipartisan vote.

But, nonetheless, we made his amendment in order, and I look forward to the debate on the floor and, again, look forward to voting ``no'' on it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for the constructive way that he has brought his concerns to the floor. I am very sympathetic to what he is trying to do. The Appropriations Committee believes that the funding level in the bill will support hiring the maximum number of immigration judges who can be brought on board in a single year. Nonetheless, we are going to have to invest significantly more because there is a backlog.

I think the problem with his amendment, and we talked about this last night, was the offset. He wanted, basically, to take $71 million from the general legal activities, which funds Justice Department divisions such as the Civil Rights Division; the Civil Division, which includes funding for cases involving consumer and elder fraud; the Criminal Division, which includes mutual legal assistance reform; and the Environment and Natural Resources Division. These litigation components do a great deal of important work.

I think the conversation should continue, and we should, hopefully, be able to build consensus around an offset that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul.

I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio very much.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the fact that the gentleman appreciates the staff who have been forced to remain here late into the night and into the early morning while he has insisted on vote after vote after vote. I am willing to venture a guess that the staff doesn't appreciate him very much.

I appreciate that the gentleman wants to do something about the here and now, about what is happening right this second. I wish the gentleman had that same attitude before he voted to delay the implementation of the emergency supplemental bill to deal with the disasters that hit Texas and a number of other States.

Let me assure the gentleman that we are very concerned about the humanitarian crisis at the border, and we are

engaged in negotiations with the Senate and the White House, trying to resolve this.

There are serious humanitarian needs at the border, many of which have been exacerbated by the Trump administration's cruel immigration policies. I mean, House Democrats understand these urgent needs. We want to address them, and negotiations continue.

Appropriators are continuing to have important conversations about how best to balance funding to address the humanitarian needs of the border with the imperative to hold this administration accountable.

If Republicans work with us, I am told that, by July 4th recess, we can pass a bicameral, bipartisan bill to provide humanitarian funding and protect the rights and the dignity of migrants.

It is hard for me to accept that the heart of what this administration is doing has anything to do with being humanitarian, with caring about the plight of these migrants. I have seen the separation of children from their parents, the cruel separation of children from their parents at the border. I have listened to this President go on a rampage, diminishing the plight of these refugees, in many cases, fleeing for their lives.

We are working, hopefully, in a bipartisan, bicameral way to get this done. But I would say this: If we care about doing what is right from a humanitarian perspective, it is not embracing the policies of this President.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who is my friend, and all those who participated in the debate here today.

Let me just make one observation about the previous question and this debate on the border crisis. I am looking at a Politico column that just appeared at 12:58 p.m. It says:

House inches toward 11th hour deal on funding the border

crisis.

We probably would have reached a deal already, because the negotiations have been ongoing, but instead, Members have had to spend an inordinate amount of time on the House floor voting on amendment after amendment that passed almost unanimously.

One of the things I have learned about this place is that we have a lot of people who like to embrace the theater of Washington, and sometimes it becomes the theater of the absurd, people who know that issues are about to be solved, but who then stand up and demand that it gets solved so that when it gets solved, they can take a bow and take credit.

The bottom line is what has gone on on this House floor has delayed, I think, a solution here that we all want, and my hope is that Politico is correct and that we will get to this resolution soon and that there will be a big, strong, bipartisan support of whatever the agreement is, but I assure you about one thing, no deal is coming to a conclusion because of the theatrics that have happened on this House floor with demanding vote after vote after vote.

It really has become silly, it has become absurd, and I think we are better than that.

If people want to solve issues, they ought to support the negotiators of both parties that are trying to work

out a deal, and that is the way this place should operate. When it doesn't, it becomes silly, and that is what has been going on here.

Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question.

I would also say that there is no such thing as a perfect rule or perfect bill, but this is it. There are 290 amendments that are going to be debated on this. That is not clamping down on the process. There are 290 amendments.

There are a lot of amendments here. I started reading some of the Republican amendments that have been made in order. I have got to be honest with you, a lot of them, I think, are really terrible ideas, and I am going to fight like hell to try to defeat them because they are so bad. But they are going to have their day on the floor and they are going to be able to debate them.

That is not counting all the bipartisan amendments that have been made in order where Democrats and Republicans actually came together and forged a collaboration and a coalition to try to get stuff done for the good of our country.

Now, Madam Speaker, I understand that some watching this debate might find the appropriations process to be a little arcane, but it is actually incredibly important.

It is about whether Congress is going to make investments that give everyone in this country a shot at a better life. That is even more important today, especially with this administration in power.

Republicans have claimed for years to want a government so small that they could drown it in a bathtub. Well, this administration is taking it one step further, and wants a government small enough to leave millions of poor and working Americans with nowhere to turn. That is why it has released one extreme proposal after the next that would cut government spending to the bone for hardworking families, all while the wealthy get a windfall.

I have heard from so many in my district that are rightly frustrated by this approach. They want to see investments made in our communities that help all Americans, and that is what this does.

Let me say it again. The Appropriations Committee, the Democrats and the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee and their staffs, deserve bipartisan praise for the incredible amount of work they have put into this.

If you want to grow our economy and you want to combat gun violence, you want to rebuild our infrastructure, and more, then you should support this bill.

My friends on the other side who talked about wanting to debate more Republican ideas on the House floor should also support this bill, because, again, we are making 290 amendments in order for this bill. Again, some of them I agree with, some of them I plan to vote against, but they are all going to be debated.

Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying, in addition to thanking the Appropriations Committee and their staff, I want to thank the Rules Committee, the Democrats and the Republicans, and our staffs, for all the time that they have put in during, not only this week but last week as well. It is like final exam week. These are all-nighters for the staff, and oftentimes that gets overlooked, so I want to thank them for their patience and for their diligent work.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' on the previous question, ``yes'' on this rule and on the underlying resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, my friend on the Rules Committee has made a commitment this year, which he has been following through on, to try to bring order to an otherwise fairly chaotic process up there.

This is clearly just a clerical error, and it is one that we all worked through together last night, so I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment request.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. We just came out of a long night in the Rules Committee. I say ``we'' from the Member side. We were out of there by midnight. I have not yet asked the Rules Committee staff when they got out of there last night because I really didn't want to know the answer to that.

When we meet in the Rules Committee on appropriations bills, we are in for long nights. My first year in Congress, Madam Speaker--the gentlewoman may have been following it at the time--it was when the big Republican majority came in as the new Democratic majority has come in now. The appropriations season hadn't been finished, so the first order of business when we came in as a new majority was to take on the appropriations challenge.

It seemed crazy at the time--this is a minibus, a group of four bills together--what we decided to do was to take the entire discretionary account of the entire United States of America, bring it down here to the House floor, and consider it under an open rule.

I brought a copy of that rule down with me, Madam Speaker. It was House Resolution 92. We heard the Reading Clerk read this morning. It took Joseph a while to get through that.

We are only considering a small fraction of the budget today. Back then, we were considering the entire Federal budget, and it was right here in three pages. The truth is, the part that dealt with the appropriations bill is only one of these sections. The other two were housekeeping business.

We allowed the entire body to bring their ideas to the table to see what might stick. I say it was a radical idea because I had just gotten to Congress. I went back and looked at the numbers, historically. It turned out, it didn't use to be a radical idea. We have made it a radical idea to let all the amendments come to the floor.

Again, my friend from Massachusetts has a very hard job as chairman of the Rules Committee. I introduced an amendment last night, Madam Speaker, barely before the committee ended, after I had had a chance to question the cardinals who were responsible for that language, and my friend from Massachusetts made it in order. He is doing everything he can to try to make the process more open than it has been in the most recent past.

But if we go back a little bit further, if we think about how to change the culture in this institution, it hasn't always been this divided.

Do you remember the first year that Speaker Pelosi sat in the chair that you are sitting in right now, Madam Speaker? She was the first, as you recall, Democratic Speaker since 1994 and the first woman to ever lead this institution. When she sat in that chair for the very first time, we had an open appropriations process. There were about 110 Democratic amendments that were offered and about 300 Republican amendments because, when you are in the minority, it is harder to get your agenda in the underlying bill.

When you run the show, as Mr. McGovern does, you are able to get all your good ideas in the bill. I have no doubt that every one of Mr. McGovern's good ideas is contained in the underlying bill. That is the privilege of leadership. When you sit on the outside, as I do and as Mr. Stauber does, it is harder to get your ideas in.

So, historically, as Speaker Pelosi did in 2007, more amendments are made in order for the minority party than are made in order for the majority party because the minority party hasn't gotten a chance to influence the process.

I am proud, over the 8 years that I was a part of the majority party here and had the privilege of sitting on the Rules Committee, more than half of the amendments, on average, across all the bills, were given to the minority party. But in this bill, Madam Speaker, again, despite the chairman's best efforts, the minority party received less than one- quarter of the amendments that are available.

What I am saying is, when Republicans were doing this from their leadership spot and we were giving more amendments to the other side, now the majority party is giving not 100 percent more amendments to their side, not 200 percent more but, more than 200 percent more.

By my statistics, since last time around, we have moved in the right direction. It used to be 300 percent more amendments given to the majority party.

Madam Speaker, I don't say that to grouse about sour grapes. Again, I say it with sincerity when I tell you that what Chairman McGovern is doing on the Rules Committee he is doing out of a real love of this institution, trying to reopen the process, but we have got to find a way to trust ourselves.

Most of what you heard the Reading Clerk read had nothing to do with the amendments of the bill we are talking about. It had to do with closing down the process, in many ways for the very first time in my congressional career, because the minority party, Republicans, are frustrated that we haven't been able to fund humanitarian needs on the border.

Now, I know talking about the border is a dog whistle to many folks in this institution. They think, as you heard the gentleman from Massachusetts mention, that it is about the wall and it is about immigration and it is about all sorts of things that it is not.

What we are talking about are children who are in the custody of the United States of America. Rightly or wrongly, like it or not, that is where we are today. And we can either fund the needs of those children, we can either fund the healthcare of those children, we can either fund the education of those children, or we cannot.

What we have heard from this administration is the same thing we have heard from the Obama administration when we had this very same crisis in 2014, and that is that we don't have enough resources to provide for the flood of folks who have been taken into U.S. custody.

The White House made this request 6 weeks ago, knowing that we were going to run out of money this month, and the House has taken no action on that request.

When we had the very same Rules Committee hearing last week, Madam Speaker, that we had this week, my friend, the chairman, talked about his sincere desire to move this kind of legislation, but it hasn't moved.

My friend from California who sits on the majority side of the Rules Committee and serves on the Appropriations Committee talked about the meeting they had in the Appropriations Committee that day to move this in an expedited way, and yet it has not yet moved.

The reason the rule considers these measures to close down the parliamentary process here is because folks are rightfully frustrated with the flow of the floor. We have serious work that we need to do, and when you are in procedural nonsense, you don't get any of that work done. But that procedural nonsense comes from a very sincere frustration that we have very real needs that are shared needs, very real passions that are shared passions, and that the consequences of failure affect us all. It affects who we are in our individual districts; it affects who we are as a nation; and for the life of me, I cannot understand why it is that this issue is receiving the neglect that it is from the leadership party.

We are going to talk about that in our previous question amendment. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up an amendment to add to the rule language that will allow us to have this important debate and provide these important funds. I will reserve the time to talk about that, Madam Speaker.

But I do want to say we had ample opportunity in the Rules Committee to make the process wide open, and that decision, candidly, is above the chairman's pay grade, and the process was not allowed to be an open process.

So then we also had ample opportunity to close the process down completely. That is completely within the chairman's pay grade. He rejected that idea and made the effort to take some very important steps forward to returning us to regular order, and for that I am grateful.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), who is one of our young leaders.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I find my friend from Virginia is almost always right about everything, so the fact that he is so wrong on this makes it worthy of commenting.

We are not here night after night voting because the Rules Committee opened up the process. We are here night after night voting because what we would ordinarily have done by voice vote, through the comity that this institution, sadly, is losing some of every day, we are demanding recorded votes, because we can't get a vote on funding the humanitarian crisis that is at the

border, a crisis that my friend from Virginia cares about, my friend from Massachusetts cares about, my friends from Tennessee and Iowa care about. You go right across this institution. It does not matter your ideological position; you care about this issue.

We are voting night after night to draw attention to the fact that we cannot get our voices heard, not because our voices are heard in volumes never before seen.

In fact, an interesting sidebar, Madam Speaker: If you go back to the days of open rules, you will actually find the committee made more amendments in order on almost every division than we would have ordinarily had if we just had an open rule. When we clamp down on the process, that steam drives the amendments up. These conversations should be had in committee, not on the floor of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), my neighbor to the north, a leader on these issues.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from New York that he is one of the bright spots on the Rules Committee. We are doing a lot of things differently this cycle than we have done them in years past, and he has been a real partner and a leader on that, Madam Speaker.

If you ever think that it is nothing but partisan nonsense--which you could imagine in a 9-to-4 committee, that that kind of thing could break out--I encourage you to come see Mr. McGovern and Mr. Morelle in action. You might be surprised with what you find.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a good friend and a leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a classmate of mine and a perennial leader in this institution.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to remind folks that we can defeat the previous question today and get on with the business of providing for the families and children along the border.

This is something that everyone in this institution cares about. For whatever reason, we can't move legislation forward. Everybody is talking about it. Nobody is doing anything about it.

There is no Member of this institution who is more frustrated with that than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy). If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up H.R. 3056, the bill to fund that crisis management at the border.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) to discuss that underlying bill.

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

I want to begin where my friend from Massachusetts left off. I have not enjoyed coming down to vote on things we could have voice-voted either. I have not enjoyed being here until midnight on votes when I knew how they were going to come out, when we could have been working together on issues where I didn't know how they were going to come out and where we were trying to be agents of change.

But when we are in the minority, it is the only tool that we have to draw attention. The reason we have been here night after night is not because Mr. Roy is trying to inconvenience anyone. It is because he went to the Rules Committee and offered an amendment to do something that everybody in this Chamber knows ought to be done, and he didn't even get a vote. Folks wouldn't even let him bring his idea. Here we are, in the people's House, on an issue that is a bipartisan issue, and he did not even get a vote.

He is not here to say it is his way or the highway. He is here to say that he thought this was a place where ideas were debated and agreed to or defeated. On that, I think he is absolutely right. He is absolutely right.

My friend from Massachusetts is right, Madam Speaker, when he says that he has opened up this process more than it was the last cycle under Republicans. It is true.

But we have heard Member after Member who said: ``I have a good bipartisan idea. I have a good bipartisan idea, but the Rules Committee didn't allow it to be heard.''

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 92 from 2011, conveniently offered by Mr. Woodall, me, that was the festival of democracy in February to March 2011, where we didn't just have an open rule on one appropriations bill, or two, three, or four. We opened up the entire Federal budget and allowed every Member's voice to be heard. From the most liberal Republican to the most conservative, from the most conservative Democrat to the most liberal, everybody had a say.

Madam Speaker, the problem we are having, I tell the gentleman from Massachusetts, is not that we are opening up the process and so that is why we are having all of these delays. The problem is that the process is still too closed. That is why we are having delays.

I can understand it if you beat me when I am trying to represent the views of my constituents. But when you shut me down, I think it offends each and every one of us.

Appropriations bills have been that loan vestige of openness in this institution. Democrats shut them down before I got here. Republicans didn't improve much on that model, save this resolution from 2011. There is still much room for improvement on both sides.

Madam Speaker, let's start that improvement, start that improvement by defeating the previous question.

Let's go back to where this whole disagreement started. Let's give the gentleman from Texas an opportunity to be heard on the bill from the gentleman from Alabama. Let's fund this crisis that we all agree needs to be funded.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be inserted in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I will close with the words from the chairman of the Rules Committee last week:

I take a back seat to no one on this issue. We will deal

with this issue. We will come up with something quick, and I

look forward to working with you. We need to move this bill

expeditiously.

I believe every word that he said. But it has been 7 days and the sole result of those meaningful words is nothing. We might have the luxury of another day. We might have the luxury of another 2. But that luxury is fast eroding, Madam Speaker.

My friend from Massachusetts does take a back seat to no one when it comes to caring for children, which is why we are all counting on his leadership to move this issue forward with the seriousness that every Member of this institution believes it deserves.

Madam Speaker, I urge my friends: Defeat the previous question. Let's have this conversation today, not tomorrow, not the next day. Let's fix today what we can fix today.

Madam Speaker, success has an amazing way of making people feel better about themselves. Doing things that matter has an amazing way of making people feel better. It turns out, in this institution, Madam Speaker, success is incremental.

We do something well together today, we do something even bigger together tomorrow.

Defeat this previous question. Take up this issue of families and their care, and then we will move on with the rest of the appropriations business exactly, flawed or not, as my friend from Massachusetts has crafted.

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

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

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. 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.