Tom Graves

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment. I want to thank Mr. Quigley for working with Members from both sides of the aisle here to pull together a combination of 15 different concepts and amendments that we have included in this one amendment here and six of which are Republican amendments. So I appreciate Mr. Quigley's cooperation as we work through these issues that are important to all of us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), who is offering an amendment that is included in the en bloc.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), one of our newest Members, who would like to speak on his amendment.

Mr. Chair, again, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee. He has done a wonderful job putting together 15 good amendments that we can all agree on, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This is another en bloc amendment, and, unlike the one we spoke on previously, this is purely a partisan amendment with really no reflection of a bipartisan tone whatsoever. In fact, it is really nothing more than a partisan attack on the administration and an attempt to make their lives a little bit more difficult, which we see every day around this place.

It would be nice if the other side would recognize that the administration needs certain resources and needs access to those resources in order to carry out the functions of their job, just like we do here.

Mr. Chair, because of those reasons, I object to the amendment, encourage a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and not in opposition to Mr. Connolly in any way. I know that he is representing his district, his constituents, and his interests in OPM doing their job and doing it well. But there are some challenges.

There is no doubt OPM has made it clear they want to perform their duties and their function, but in order to do that, they must reorganize. They must modernize. They must update themselves as an agency and an organization.

We are seeing that across all agencies, but this one in particular needs some assistance.

Mr. Chairman, I will add, their current funding, where they are today, is

what is driving them to this decision to make this notice that, if things don't improve, they really don't have any other choice but to furlough individuals. Their option is to reorganize.

But why are we in this position? It is because of the conference committee report earlier this year. The Financial Services bill was a part of the conference committee report. You will recall that.

Maybe the focus was more on homeland security and on border walls and border security and other things, but this bill was a part of that. As a result of the product that came out of this body under the new majority, it was insufficient for OPM. Therefore, they are having to forewarn of decisions they are going to have to make.

But we should give them credit. They are looking for an alternative, and that is to reorganize, to change, to modernize, to update.

But do you know what, Mr. Chairman? In this bill, the underlying bill--not this amendment--they are prohibited from protecting these jobs. As a result of this bill, under this majority, they are prohibited from protecting the jobs.

Now an amendment comes all the way back around the other end to say: Wait. You can't do what you want to do to protect those jobs, and you can't fire anybody. You can't furlough anybody. You can't reorganize.

What are they to do? What are they to do?

So I heard a really nice argument for this amendment, but I really didn't hear a solution for OPM.

It would be nice that, if we are going to micromanage--and I think we heard a great quote yesterday: ``Just because you can micromanage doesn't mean you have to.'' But if we are, maybe we should provide some guidance and some assistance.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leader's comments. He is an observant Member, been here for many years. He has seen how government operates. And, quite frankly, there have not been too many examples of the consolidation of government agencies.

But in a time of technology and advancements and modernization, I think government could merge some things together, could find some synergies, could save some dollars; and in this economy that we are experiencing today, what better time to do that?

The unemployment rate is at the lowest it has been in 51 years. Allowing others to experience that opportunity of growth and wealth throughout the economy and additional job opportunities, take their skills somewhere else, that is great.

But that is not really what OPM wants to do. They are being forced to do that because of last year's--or earlier this year, the inadequacy of a funding bill that put them in this position. It was the first big test of this new majority, and, unfortunately, it put these agencies in a tough spot.

The only choice is to come up with other ideas and solutions, and that is, maybe we have to reorganize, maybe we have to modernize, but certainly we have to analyze how we can serve the American people better. In some cases, that might mean we can be leaner, more efficient, and more effective, and that might mean merging different agencies together and creating some new synergies.

Mr. Chair, with that, I will oppose the amendment and ask others to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

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

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Ms. Dean

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, while I don't support this underlying bill, I thought I would take a different approach with this MTR today.

We are heading into a long break. We are going to be separated from one another, and I thought it would be nice if we just thanked the other side for some of the things they have done in this bill.

First, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends on the left for including and codifying Hyde-like protections for the innocent unborn. With this vote today, it is encouraging that our friends on the other side of the aisle do agree--they do agree--that the lives of the innocent unborn deserve our protection, and that is in the underlying bill today.

I would also like to thank my friends for their strong stand against the growing threat and spread of socialism around the world and recognizing that democracy is the answer. That is in this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that we came together in favor of boosting States' rights, standing behind the 10th Amendment for all of our States when it comes to banking for certain small businesses. That is in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Lastly, let me thank my friends on the other side for recognizing the hard work and dedication of our Federal employees. The majority leader has allowed the 2.6 percent cost-of-living adjustment, a pay raise, to stay in this bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, that raise does extend to all Members of this House. That took courage from the majority leader, and we want to thank him before we leave here this week. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is not what the MTR is about, but we just wanted to say ``thank you'' for a moment.

This MTR focuses on one major bipartisan issue, Mr. Speaker: keeping us out of war and enforcing sanctions, sanctions against Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, and others which seek to harm our Nation.

I can think of no one better that I could yield to at this moment to discuss the importance of this MTR than a Green Beret who has served in multiple combat missions around the world, has 20 years of service in the U.S. Army, an American hero, our colonel of the Army, Mike Waltz from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise today to express some concerns and opposition to the current bill before us, the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill.

First, before I get into some of the highlights of our opposition, I have been through this process before last year as chairman of this subcommittee, so I truly understand and am aware of the hard work that Mr. Quigley and his team have put into this bill, and I commend them for navigating a process that is not easy and making it to this point that we are here today.

Now, while I don't support every piece of this bill, I certainly value the approach that Chairman Quigley took and the strong working relationship that he and I have both had over the years and continue to have.

The bill we are addressing includes, I will say, a few key priorities that have been really important to my Republican colleagues and myself, and we appreciate that and look forward to supporting those in the future. And it does strike a bit of a bipartisan tone in a way that I know that we all appreciate, and our constituents value the most, and, quite frankly, we could use a little bit more of that around here. And I know you would agree with that, Mr. Chairman.

Now, while this is a really good starting point, and that is how I will characterize where we are today, we are at a starting point, a small foundation that we can build from, the bill, as drafted, is just not something that I can support at this time, nor my Republican colleagues, but I would like to highlight some of the areas that I think we need to work on.

First and foremost, if we were to have a budget agreement--and that is a big if, because there is a lot of discussion about budget agreements, but there has certainly not been any movement, and that is one of the bigger problems the new majority has, is navigating the budget process, seeing how a budget hasn't even been passed out of committee.

This bill will continue the spending that our Nation has seen at a skyrocketing fashion, one that we just

don't need to accept. The total level of discretionary spending under this bill increases by 8 percent over last year. That is a significant number. Last year, when I was chair, we were proposing cutting this bill by 5 percent, and this year we are 13 points different, going up 8 percent, which is nearly a $2 billion increase.

Secondly, this bill blocks the administration from doing what they are so focused on right now, and that is securing this Nation and our country, particularly at the southern border. I am sure we will hear later this week if the new majority gets the votes to bring a bill to the floor about a border supplemental, but you have to ask yourself, why do we even need that supplemental?

We had an opportunity earlier this year with the conference committee report to provide the funds the administration requested, and yet the new majority rejected that then, and now comes forward with a supplemental, but while at the same time, ironically, obstructing the spending of the administration currently from spending funds to secure the border through this bill.

So the irony of the failure of the conference committee report, the inability to get a supplemental to the floor for a vote this week, but yet refusing to allow the administration to secure the border through this bill in addition, so it is ironic, and that is something that we certainly would like to see restored.

But also, this would remove any oversight and accountability that this body has over the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia is not like a city in any of our States. It is a district. It is a different entity under a different charter, of which the greatest Nation on the planet's capital exists, and I believe we should continue that oversight, but yet this gives the District of Columbia a blank checkbook here.

Then next I would say, you know, we have talked about bipartisanship. This bill does omit some longstanding bipartisan provisions that we have always agreed on, and I am not sure why we would object to them today, or why the new majority would object to them today, but one, in particular, is to allow taxpayer funding for the ending of the lives of the innocent unborn.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know why we would go there today when year after year after year, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, have always come together and said those lives are precious and we should protect them from the use of taxpayer funds being used to eliminate their life.

And then I am concerned that the bill as it is currently written would force schools to withdraw from the Opportunity Scholarship Program. One of the great successes this body has enjoyed over the years is celebrating in the success of children of the District of Columbia benefiting from a scholarship program, to see their lives improved and enriched and move on into a better future. In fact, the scholarship program has a great record of success, with 98 percent of 12th grade students participating graduating, a 98 percent graduation rate. Eighty-six percent of them are accepted to a 2- or 4-year college after graduation.

We should not be making it harder for these schools to operate. We shouldn't be making it harder for kids to be able to enjoy this opportunity. In fact, quite frankly, it is just an assault on the low- income children right here in the District of Columbia.

It is also disappointing that this bill drops a long-standing prohibition against requiring contractors to disclose campaign contributions as a part of the Federal procurement process.

This process should be about getting the best service by the best company for the best price for the American people, the best to assist our constituents. Instead, now, if the provision as it is stated in this bill continues, we might be creating a new higher bidder scenario in which it is the highest bidder of political contributions going to a company might get the bid instead of something different, such as the best price from the best company for the best service.

Now, we all know that these are poison pills that Members of both sides shouldn't be forced to swallow here today.

As long as this bill is fashioned in this manner, Mr. Chairman, we know that it is not going to be signed into law. Just yesterday President Trump said that if this bill were on his desk in this current form, he would veto this legislation.

So I know we are going to have a robust debate today, and maybe we can improve upon this foundation, but with the Federal debt exceeding $22 trillion, we just can't afford to spend more. We don't need to spend more on general governmental activities. Just because we can spend it doesn't mean we should, nor should we spend it at any time in the future when we have the opportunity to cut, and instead, today here we are spending more.

So it is up to us. Let's set the example, Mr. Chairman. Let's leave this country's pocketbook in better shape for our kids and our grandkids.

Mr. Chair, as I close, I do want to finish on a positive note, because we do have a great working relationship. I want to thank Chairman Quigley. I want to thank his team. They have addressed some of the priorities that are important to us, and they have crafted a small foundation which I know we can all work from in the days ahead.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey. She has done a great job this year with the committee, and she is absolutely right in congratulating Mr. Quigley on his good work this year.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), our Republican leader of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Serrano's years of work on the subcommittee as well as his leadership on the Commerce, Justice, and Science Committee. It has been a joy to work with him and learn from him over the years. We are going to miss his presence after this term, as I know he has announced he is not running for reelection.

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the Republican leader of the Education and Labor Committee.

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