Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 796 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 796 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
Mr. Speaker, last night, at a late hour, the Rules Committee met, where we had expert testimony that was offered on behalf of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentlewoman from New York.
I would like to, if I could, express to my friend, Mr. McGovern, the professional nature not only that he but Judge Hastings, another member of the committee, represented the Democratic side at a time that is very difficult for them with the passing and loss of a tremendous leader in the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from New York, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter.
Mr. McGovern and Mr. Hastings not only conducted themselves, in my opinion, in a professional straightforward manner, but represented their party quite well in a time of distress and a time of need. I want to express my complete confidence not only in Mr. McGovern, but also thank Judge Hastings for his professional demeanor last night as we worked through very, very difficult issues till late in the night, till early in the morning. And compliments also to the gentlemen, the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their professional conversations that were had that were in the best interest not only of the House of Representatives but the American people. I want to thank Mr. McGovern publicly at this time for his professional cause and substance.
Mr. Speaker, today we rise in support of this rule and, of course, the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1625, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018.
Mr. Speaker, this is funding the government for the rest of the year, through September 30. This is an important measure. This is an important measure not only for the American people, but it is important for Members of Congress.
There are a lot of ways that we could stand and say what we are for or what we are against, but the bottom line is that this is a piece of legislation that has been worked on, on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats, give and take, and has been worked on the other side of the Capitol with the United States Senate.
It is in no way a perfect bill. That, I think, I learned a long time ago, is hard to get through to be signed by the President. But with that said, it yielded amazing results in a process that needed to come to a conclusion.
This 12-bill appropriations package provides funding for fiscal year 2018 at levels consistent with the bipartisan budget agreement and the National Defense Authorization Act.
After years of neglect, this body has taken the important step of reshaping and rebuilding the United States military by providing them $659.6 billion worth of funding for our national defense. But it is for more than just national defense. It is also trying to give better protection to the men and women who protect us, the men and women who, today, are in cold, lonely, hot, dangerous places around the globe.
Mr. Speaker, a much-needed $65 billion increase over 2017 fiscal year spending was essential. Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. More members of our armed services gave their life in defense of this country in training exercises than they did in combat last year. This is a hardy reminder for Members of Congress and the American people to understand that our men and women not only fight hard, but they train hard. And in that defense, we need to do a better job to make sure that the equipment, the training, and the needs that they have are top flight year-round not just in combat areas, but in training missions where they are preparing to protect this country. Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way to that, and I am proud of the work that we have done.
The agreement ends, I think, the irresponsible practice of pairing dollar-for-dollar increases in defense spending with nondefense. This is a hard fight. This is a hard fight not only Republican-Democrat, but across this country. We have tried to make some balanced decisions. We have tried to err on the side of using money for the best interest of research and development and to move this country forward.
The bill strengthens missile defense. It strengthens and funds new weapons systems for the military. And it heavily increases designated counterthreats around the globe. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are facing down one of the greatest threats to the world right now, North Korea. Now is not a time to
shy away. Mr. Speaker, we will not shy away. These colors don't run.
It funds additional national security priorities, including nuclear modernization, new nuclear submarines, and other important shipbuilding and aircraft procurement for our United States military. Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and her counterpart from the appropriations committee looked at the exercise that is necessary and came up to streamline and make sure that the money that would be given would be necessary and only in defense of this Nation.
This legislation also includes a long overdue 2.4 percent pay increase for our troops. The men and women who care for our veterans know that they need the help, and their service to this country will not be without a thank-you, thus providing a record level of VA funding, while increasing oversight to make sure that the benefits and treatment of our veterans is properly taken care of.
The new Secretary Shulkin of the VA is very concerned about the duty that they have to our veterans, and he has assured us this amount of funding will allow he and the Department that opportunity to fix, correct, and, long term, know that the long-term safety for our veterans and their facilities will be accomplished.
It provides robust funding to fight terrorism. It enhances criminal law enforcement and secures our borders by increasing funding for border security and the enforcement of immigration law. This legislation also includes new infrastructure funding for highways, waterways, airways, railways, and other infrastructure priorities to ensure public safety is taken care of and to promote economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, it provides $4 billion, the largest investment to date, to combat the opioid crisis. We have spent a great deal of time not only working on this Member to Member, but also State organizations working with their members; Federal law enforcement; and the National Institutes of Health, through the direction of Dr. Shiva Singh, their chief medical officer who spent a great deal of time working with Members of Congress, opioid task forces, substance abuse task forces, and perhaps, most of all, the problems that we have that face this great Nation, where we have addiction problems. These are addressed within this spending bill.
Increase in funding by $3 billion, certainly the head of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, believes that this investment in the National Institutes of Health, including the National Eye Institute and other important parts of NIH, will receive the funding that is necessary to ensure that the men and women of this country who suffer long-term effects of aging and other medical problems, that we can address them and live up to our responsibility.
I thank Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Shiva Singh for their instruction to our important Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tom Cole for his great work at the NIH--$2.3 billion in new funding for mental health training and school safety efforts help our children to make sure that our schools are safe.
This is a brief rundown, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of work not only that we have dug in and done on a bipartisan basis, but the kind of work that I believe the American people want, need, and expect.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I not only accept his advice about process and procedure, but I certainly would join in with him to thank our appropriators, the men and women who, on a bipartisan basis, Mr. Speaker, took time to wander to the other side of the Capitol to engage their colleagues.
I can tell the gentleman, and he knows this probably on a firsthand basis, much was discussed. This was a big process. This was at the end of the year that I do agree with that should have taken place on October 1, not on March 22, that we decided where we are headed.
But the discussion, the decisionmaking, the ability for both sides, both parties, to deal on the same issues has gotten tougher and tougher.
I support our Speaker and what he is attempting to do. He has opened up the process. He has tried to make it to where the discussions take place on a bipartisan basis. And the Speaker, I believe, has tried to place before us, as Members of Congress, the opportunity to be heard, to represent our thoughts and ideas.
I didn't win some of the issues that I was for. I held some ideas out about a number of issues that we had been working on that were contained in the bills that came out of the House only to come back months later from the Senate in a different priority, in a different way, and perhaps not exactly what I would have wanted.
It would be easy for me to say, however, that the greater good of what we are attempting to accomplish is why we are here. Ultimately, we have a duty, Mr. Speaker, we have a duty and a responsibility, to ensure that which we finalize is in the best interest of the American people. The overriding concern here is to make sure that the efforts of government, albeit that we as Americans, I don't think, want to get all that we pay for from government, we still recognize that there are people in our midst that need a government--and I do, too--a government that works well and is funded properly.
Mr. Speaker, last night we had an opportunity to hear from a number of my colleagues on the Republican side, a number of Members of Congress who spent hours waiting their time before the Rules Committee, not an unusual intuitive process from a number of our Members who had questions, comments, and concerns.
I promised to address one of them. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) brought forth what was a discussion about what is known as the NICS fix, or, as we refer to it, fixing NICS, a NICS fix.
Well, this is the database that is responsible for holding names and giving approvals for those people who purchase weapons across the United States. I agreed to provide some bit of an answer today and I hope some clarity on the issue that relates back to December of 2017.
I told the gentleman last night that I believed that, while his arguments were important and I supported exactly the underlying ideas, and that is that we do not believe that agencies by themselves should have the ability to deny an American citizen the right, the constitutional right, for them to properly, legally own a weapon, as we do know and remember back during a previous administration, at least two agencies, the Social Security Administration and the Veterans Administration, developed procedures by which they believed were appropriate, but that I think have proven incorrect, to deny people a weapon based upon a criteria that they established.
This fix NICS provision was corrected and is still in law, and, to the best of my ability in double-checking, I would now like to notify the gentleman from Kentucky that I believe it is properly done.
I would not be a part of making a change in the law, as I told him, that would deny an American citizen under these two agencies without lawful consideration of a hearing and with due process, and based upon the law and constitutional requirements of our Constitution to deny someone their right to keep and bear arms.
Mr. Speaker, please consider that I appreciate the gentleman who showed up last night until late, late in the morning, and that he was doing his duty, which I respect and admire, and I am trying to respond back to him.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to digress too much, but the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to a process that just was embarrassing and did not work. I recall, last night, testimony from the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey): ``This is one of the best processes that I can recall. We have products that we can be proud of. We worked together.''
Mr. Speaker, it is hard doing business in this town. It is hard doing business because we have disagreements. But let us not also misunderstand that it was President Trump who challenged Congress when our previous administration simply went about writing their own rules and regulations that made the circumstances on our border not only more dangerous, but very costly for every single American by encouraging tens of thousands of people to travel through Central America to come to the United States, and for us to take them into the United States with illegality that has been ruled on by Federal courts in this country.
A legal and lawful process is what President Trump is attempting to have this Congress do. He understands that power under Article I and the power under Article II. I believe that President Trump personally invoked hours of his time to make sure that he properly worked with Congress--key people from the House, key people from the Senate-- televised day after day to get
closer on the issue that he felt could gain resolution. It is a hard issue. But to suggest in any way that President Trump is a culprit of anything except leading to the best I believe would be an unfair statement against his intended desire to resolve the issue.
Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee, under the strong leadership of the gentleman from Georgia, Rob Woodall, and the strong leadership of Tom Cole, provided evidence-based information not just to sustain the document that we are here for, but actually to continue the explanation of what we are doing and why, including the balances of budgeting and those necessary items but also the content.
Our vice chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Tom Cole, doubles in his duty to Congress, and he serves as the lead appropriator, the chairman of the subcommittee that is responsible for health, NIH, and research and development. Mr. Cole's professional attributes really shined last night as he, with great pride, discussed major, hard issues facing this Nation, facing the United States, and facing the medical community in this country. I was very proud of not only his content with the substance, but also with the delivery of the product.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) to discuss this seemingly impossible work that he made possible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oklahoma an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time remaining on both sides.
Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), the Rules Committee designee to the Budget Committee, a gentleman who has served this Nation well and will continue to serve the Budget Committee well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank not only the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) but also thanks to the minority whip for coming and engaging in this issue.
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that this last summer, last summer, we engaged in all 12 spending bills on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Appropriations Committee received over 700 thoughts, ideas, so to speak, amendments for them to consider. It was an open process. Mr. Speaker, on the floor, 232 amendments were a part of the process of the 12 bills.
Last night, Nita Lowey, the ranking member, sat before the Rules Committee at about midnight and said: It is late, but the process worked. The process worked for Democrats. The process worked for appropriators to work on a bipartisan basis, and the process worked in the United States Senate.
Mr. Speaker, two members of the Appropriations staff, Shannon O'Keefe and Nancy Fox, are sterling members of the professional staff of the House of Representatives who did one heck of a job to make sure our Rules Committee--staff and Members--got the information we needed.
I agree the process should be better. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 115-614) to accompany House Resolution 796 the Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1625 included:
A waiver of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation providing new budget authority in excess of a 302(a) allocation of such authority.
A waiver of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation that would cause the level of total new budget authority for the first fiscal year to be exceeded, or would cause revenues to be less than the level of total revenues for the first fiscal year or for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years for which allocations are provided.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.