June 13, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 99 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H4681-H4685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 431 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2740.
  Will the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1450


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2740) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Van Drew (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today pursuant to House Resolution 431, further proceedings on 
amendment No. 87 printed in part B of House Report 116-109 offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) had been postponed.


                 Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Walker

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 89 
printed in part B of House Report 116-109.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 405, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,366,500,000)''.
       Page 409, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,930,000,000)''.
       Page 410, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,164,867,000)''.
       Page 410, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,435,312,000)''.
       Page 411, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $92,043,000)''.
       Page 412, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 413, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $172,700,000)''.
       Page 414, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $101,000,000)''.
       Page 414, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $770,334,000)''.
       Page 416, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,532,000,000)''.
       Page 416, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 417, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $425,000,000)''.
       Page 418, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $905,000,000)''.
       Page 419, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $32,500,000)''.
       Page 419, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Walker) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, less than 10 days ago, this body missed a 
perfect opportunity. You see, natural disasters are unpredictable, but 
you know what isn't? Congress failing to do their job and prepare for 
them.
  For too long Washington has governed by crisis and shifted its 
responsibility to adequately care for those in need, opting instead to 
saddle our children and grandchildren with an impossible debt.
  Then days ago, this body wanted to spend more than $19 billion with 
no consideration of how to pay for it. Was it for a worthy cause? 
Absolutely. Of course. I would hope that every dollar appropriated by 
Congress is for a worthy cause. But as then-Representative Mike Pence 
said in 2005, following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, does 
Congress have a duty to ensure that a catastrophe of nature does not 
become a catastrophe of debt?
  Congress should pay for these emergency packages by either cutting 
spending in other areas that are less of a priority or responsibly 
budgeting for them ahead of time.
  Disaster aid shouldn't be added to the debt. That is akin to going to 
the emergency room after an injury, putting the charges on a credit 
card, and then pretending that credit card bill is never going to 
arrive.
  The bottom line is this, that even during an emergency, Washington 
needs to pay its bills.
  My amendment is relatively simple, Mr. Chair. My amendment would be a 
1-year reallocation of the Department of State and USAID's bilateral 
economic assistance and independent agency funds to cover the disaster 
recovery.
  Let me explain. Combined, these accounts amount to more than $23.9 
billion and would fully cover the disaster recovery, including the 
$5.87 billion in debt servicing costs of the borrowed funds, all while 
prioritizing America's recovery and resiliency.
  America is still the most philanthropic country in the world and 
would continue to be.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment recognizes our dire fiscal health by 
reducing foreign aid during these times and prioritizing Americans and 
American recovery efforts first.
  As the President and this administration have said on multiple 
occasions, we must prioritize our domestic needs first and put the 
American citizens at the front of the line, especially during these 
times of disaster relief and especially since we are the ones that will 
foot the bill.
  With these spending offsets, I believe we can show the American 
people we are serious about their recovery from disasters in a fiscally 
responsible manner that will not burden our future generations with 
debt and despair.
  Finally, we can help our neighbors and serve the Americans impacted 
by natural disasters by prioritizing our families before foreign 
interests.
  Congress should take this opportunity to put America first and lead 
responsibly.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Rogers and I have worked hard 
to craft a bill that provides the necessary tools to the Secretary of 
State and USAID Administrator to advance United States foreign policy.
  Smart use of global health, humanitarian, and development assistance 
supports the United States' interests, builds greater global stability, 
and promotes American values.
  The gentleman's amendment would, not trim, but entirely cut all these 
investments, including support to 14.7 million people receiving 
lifesaving HIV treatment, including 700,000 children;

[[Page H4682]]

70 million children learning to read with U.S. assistance; 68.5 million 
refugees displaced by conflict or natural disasters; and 7,200 Peace 
Corps volunteers serving as excellent representatives of the United 
States.
  How are these cuts in our national interest?
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple. It is about 
prioritizing domestic needs. It is about prioritizing these families 
that have suffering. It is about prioritizing these children who are 
suffering.
  We need to be responsible.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their 
hard work in the appropriations process, but nowhere is this spending 
disaster relief ever talked about. It is time that we do so.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, our national security is strongest when 
development, diplomacy, and defense are equally prioritized.
  This amendment undermines United States leadership and diminishes our 
engagement in the world.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Palmer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 91 
printed in part B of House Report 116-109.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 599, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 
     17 (and redesignate accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike the section that 
allows payments to go towards the Paris climate agreement. Most 
importantly, it would allow President Trump to follow through on his 
plan to withdraw from the agreement.
  Just a few months ago, it was reported that the U.S. economy exceeded 
analysts' predictions and grew at over 3 percent in the first quarter 
of this year.
  In October of last year, unemployment had a mere 50-year low, and 
wages are going up. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 
there are 7.4 million jobs available.
  Mr. Chair, now those on the other side of the aisle want to put at 
risk that growth and enforce policies that will do nothing to stop 
climate change.

                              {time}  1500

  What would staying in the agreement lead to?
  The Heritage Foundation has modeled the policies that would be 
required to meet the Obama administration's Paris commitments and found 
that by 2035 there would be an overall loss of nearly 400,000 jobs, 
half of which would be in manufacturing, an average total income lost 
of more than $20,000 for a family of four, an aggregate GDP loss of 
over $2.5 trillion, and an increase in household electricity 
expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent.
  My amendment would allow the United States to stay out of this 
unrealistic and overbearing agreement. I urge the Members to vote 
``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALMER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I rise in support of his amendment.
  The Paris Agreement is an unworkable, unrealistic policy solution to 
climate change. If implemented, as the gentleman has said, the Paris 
accord could cost as many as 2.7 million American jobs by 2025 and 
imposes no meaningful obligations on the world's leading polluters like 
China and India.
  I can't condone dedicating precious Federal funds to a half-baked 
solution. This amendment would strike funding provided for implementing 
that agreement, as well as language that attempts to prevent President 
Trump from withdrawing.
  I urge Members to support the gentleman's amendment, and I thank him 
for yielding.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Our global partners are critical in combating climate change, and the 
Paris Agreement is a sign of the global commitment from these countries 
to fight this scourge together.
  In addition, climate change is a serious national security threat, 
and we need to treat it as such by seeking allies, including 
multilateral institutions to address it with urgency.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the ranking member on the Select Committee on 
the Climate Crisis.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Alabama for yielding. I want to thank him for bringing this 
amendment up.
  Mr. Chairman, it is really important to make sure we understand what 
we are talking about here. The Paris accord was engaged in for the 
purpose of benefiting the global environment, for benefiting the global 
environment and for reducing emissions, yet what has happened under the 
agreement with the pledges that the nations have made is that the 
United States, over the last several years, has actually reduced our 
emissions by nearly a billion tons. China has actually increased theirs 
by 4 billion tons.
  This agreement is so disparate it doesn't make sense. The President 
was right to withdraw.
  But to distinguish, we can stay focused on the targets, the pledges, 
but we should not codify, memorialize, agree, or in anyway comply with 
this disparate approach where China can continue polluting the 
environment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is similar to a scenario where I get together with 
a group of friends and I say, hey, we are going to have a savings club, 
and we are all going to get together, and I am going put money into it, 
and they are going come and take money out. That is not a savings club. 
That is what is happening.
  This is not benefiting the environment. The United States should not 
participate, codify, or support this scenario where China is out there 
more than increasing by the emissions reductions that the United States 
is achieving.
  We have had the greatest emissions reductions in the world, greater 
than the next 11 countries combined, and we have done it without this 
agreement.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rouda).
  Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Chair, when are my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle going to give up this toddler argument that we should not take 
action to address the number one issue facing humankind, and that is 
climate change?
  The fact that other countries are not moving as fast as we are is no 
reason for us to give up the mantle of leadership and allow the United 
States of America to be the only country on the face of the Earth not a 
member of the Paris climate accord.
  It is time for us to be on the right side of history, and I would 
implore the Members on the other side of the aisle to recognize this is 
their time to do the right thing, not just for us, but for our 
children, our grandchildren, and future generations.

[[Page H4683]]

  

  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that the United 
States has led the world in reducing carbon emissions, and I would also 
like to point out that even former Secretary of State John Kerry, in 
2015, stated, if we somehow eliminated all domestic greenhouse gas 
emissions--guess what--it still wouldn't be enough to offset the carbon 
pollution coming from the rest of the world.
  I would also like to point out that, in a hearing before the Select 
Committee on the Climate Crisis, I asked the Democrat witnesses, 
including an author and editor of the International Panel on Climate 
Change, if the United States completely eliminated all of its carbon 
emissions, would it stop climate change, and their answer was it would 
not.
  We have led the world in reducing carbon emissions without harming 
our economy, and it makes no sense scientifically or from an 
engineering perspective to engage in destroying our own economy when 
the rest of the world and, particularly, China and other emerging 
economies are not doing their part to reduce their carbon emissions.

  I want to emphasize the fact that eliminating our carbon emissions 
will not stop climate change. Sound science, technology, and sound 
engineering will do more to mitigate and adapt than anything else you 
can do.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, the best and the brightest among us--our 
military, our business leaders, our scientists--all agree that climate 
change is real and is a serious threat. We are already experiencing its 
harmful effects which will continue if we do not act alongside our 
multilateral partners. If we want to prepare our country to better 
mitigate and manage climate change, then I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will 
be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 92 will not be offered.
  The Chair also understands that amendment No. 93 will not be offered.


               Amendment No. 94 Offered by Mr. Arrington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 94 
printed in part B of House Report 116-109.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of division D (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for contributions to the United Nations Framework 
     Convention on Climate Change.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Arrington) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
H.R. 2740 that would prevent funds from being used to contribute to the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  Mr. Chairman, at the heart of America's economic prosperity and 
unrivaled security is an abundant, affordable supply of domestic 
energy, and the lion's share of that, 90 percent, is fossil energy. The 
hardworking energy producers of west Texas and the folks in my district 
are leading the way.
  In the Permian Basin of west Texas, we went from producing a million 
barrels of oil a day to 4 million a day, soon to be 8 million in just 3 
or 4 years, making it the most active oil and gas producing region in 
the world.
  The blessings of these natural resources have given us an 
overwhelming advantage for economic prosperity as well as national 
security. To ensure we continue these advantages for the next 
generation, I offer this amendment that would prevent U.S. taxpayer 
dollars from going to the United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change, a costly, ineffective, and irresponsible program that 
has produced the likes of the Paris climate accord.
  The climate activists' agenda, Mr. Chairman, and extreme ideological 
views promoted by the Framework Convention embrace the view that the 
only means to successfully reduce carbon emissions is to eliminate 
conventional fuels, which, by the way, power our Nation's economy, 
again, at 90 percent.
  This framework is flawed in its assumptions, fraught with political 
bias, hostile towards our main source of energy, and amounts to a jobs 
program for ideological bureaucrats, and I oppose it and so do the 
people of west Texas and most of the people in this country.
  And did I mention that we spend billions of dollars to subsidize the 
biggest polluters to comply with the mandates from this framework and 
completely transition away from conventional energy sources?
  America would pay out of the nose to fuel their vehicles and heat 
their homes. It would hurt our poor people more than anyone else.
  The Paris accord is the most recent product and egregious example of 
this framework. At best, the Paris Agreement is political window 
dressing. At worst, it is a tax on middle- and working-class families, 
with a price tag that, in just 5 years, would amount to $250 billion in 
costs to our economy and 2.7 million jobs. Meanwhile, it would have 
forced us to subsidize the world's biggest polluters, like India, and 
it would give a pass to hostile powers like Russia and China for years.
  I believe we have an environmental stewardship responsibility to our 
creator and to our children, but we must be responsible to balance 
those stewardship responsibilities with our economic and national 
security interests.
  Here is the irony, Mr. Chairman. The irony is that America is already 
leading the way for a cleaner environment, and we are leading by 
example, not by words, by flowery words, fancy phrases, big speeches, 
fear-mongering. We are leading by example.
  And we are doing this not through Big Government solutions, one-size-
fits-all, top-down mandates. We are doing it through innovation and 
technology development in partnership with industry, and the results 
are remarkable and measurable.
  Greenhouse gases are down by 14 percent since `05, the rest of the 
world up 20 percent; carbon emissions down 20 percent, the rest of the 
world up; methane gas cut in half. Since 1970, all the six key 
pollutants in the Clean Air Act, down 73 percent.
  And this President is the only one who has put in a legally sound 
greenhouse gas emissions standard that will reduce the coal power 
plants' emissions by 34 percent of the levels they were at in 2005.
  That is progress. Those are real results.
  It is reckless and naive to bind taxpayers to international 
agreements that compromise our freedom and our economic security and 
virtually do nothing to impact the environment. Instead, we should put 
forth solutions that encourage the continued development of all energy 
sources while setting high but reasonable standards for environmental 
quality in human health, and achieve those objectives not in hostility 
to the energy source that has blessed us with all the things that I 
have mentioned and not through abuse of Presidential powers, but in 
partnership with States and other important stakeholders.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1515

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, climate change is a global threat that the 
United States cannot tackle alone, and the U.N. Framework Convention on 
Climate Change convenes multilateral partners working together to 
mitigate damage to our globe.

[[Page H4684]]

  The United States has been a party to the UNFCCC since 1992, thanks 
in large part to the leadership of the George H.W. Bush administration.
  As chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, I will not support 
efforts that will jeopardize our treaty-based obligations.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rouda).
  Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Chair, the gentleman knows the Paris climate accord is 
voluntary, so he does not save one job by declining to follow the 
protocol that we previously agreed on.
  I do agree that there are economic opportunities that we can embrace, 
new technologies. I would love to see us work across the aisle to do 
just that.
  As a former Republican, I used to be in that party because of its 
environmental stewardship, because it believed that capitalism could 
help solve these problems. I still believe it as a Democrat on this 
side of the aisle, and I am hopeful that we can work together.
  For example, for every $1 that we provide in economic incentives for 
renewable energies, we have provided $80 to the fossil fuel industry. 
Clearly, if we had parity, we would see a much faster adoption of clean 
energies and the dissemination of clean energies by the existing energy 
companies. I can't wait to work with my colleagues across the aisle to 
accomplish that outcome.
  Ninety-seven percent of scientists recognize that climate change is 
real. The Department of Defense recognizes this is one of the top, if 
not the number one, national threats to our security.
  Let's work together. Let's quit pointing fingers across the aisle and 
using rhetoric that does not move forward an important issue that all 
of us should be fighting hard to address.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, the United States is a world leader in many 
areas, and we need to step up on climate change.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 96 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. Banks

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No 98 
printed in part B of House Report 116-109.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of division D (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. _.  Each amount made available in division D, except 
     those amounts made available to the Department of Defense, is 
     hereby reduced by 14 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Banks) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chair, my amendment would apply a 14 percent reduction 
in the amounts made available for this division. However, it is 
important to note that this amendment would not apply to amounts made 
available for the Department of Defense and would have no effect on 
foreign military financing.
  As my colleague highlights, there are worthy programs in this 
division to help us build and maintain strong relationships around the 
world, but we cannot continue to be a dependable friend to those in 
need if we do not put our own fiscal house in order first.
  As I mentioned previously, Washington is addicted to spending. Our 
national debt today stands at over $22 trillion. We are set here to add 
trillions of dollars more in debt every year for the foreseeable future 
if we continue down this path of spending without any fiscal 
discipline.
  We need to act now to prevent a debt crisis that consumes our 
children and our grandchildren. Unfortunately, it appears that this is 
not a priority for my friends across the aisle.
  America needs leadership to solve this problem. That is why I am here 
today again proposing that we start by making commonsense reductions to 
discretionary spending, like the one that I am proposing today to this 
division of H.R. 2740.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, the amendment applies an indiscriminate 14 
percent across-the-board cut to all programs, projects, and activities 
in the bill, apart from those administered by the Defense Department.
  The members of our committee worked hard to craft a bill that 
provides the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator the 
necessary tools to advance United States economic and security 
interests abroad. While we did not agree on every issue, the bill 
prioritizes the programs and activities that Members on both sides of 
the aisle requested.
  For example, under the amendment, global health programs would be cut 
by $1.3 billion, including drastic cuts to HIV/AIDS, maternal and child 
health, family planning, and infectious disease programs.
  Humanitarian assistance, including funds to respond to those 
displaced by the crises in Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and South 
Sudan, would be cut by $1.5 billion.
  Embassy security, which ensures the protection of our diplomatic and 
development personnel and facilities overseas, would be cut by $850 
million.
  Development assistance, which supports basic education, water, 
sanitation programs, efforts to combat human and wildlife trafficking, 
and global food security activities in the developing world would be 
cut by $583 million.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chair, the contrast here couldn't be any clearer. We 
have so many young people who are watching us in the gallery today. At 
home, I have three daughters who are aged 9, 7, and 6. If we don't do 
something about a $22 trillion national debt today, they are going to 
be holding the bag for the lack of leadership in this Congress that 
they are seeing firsthand with the spend, spend, spend mindset of 
politicians in Washington, D.C.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to continue 
spending outside of our government's means. What I hear from families 
back home in northeast Indiana is if they can live within a budget and 
if they can live within their means, why can't Washington, D.C., do the 
same?
  Hoosiers are used to a State government with a balanced budget every 
year, that passes balanced budget after balanced budget and lives 
within its means at our State house, as well. Yet, they see exactly the 
opposite time and time again in Washington. They see deficits on the 
rise. They see the national debt grow at astronomical rates, to over 
$22 trillion today.
  That is why I am here again today, the second day in a row, offering 
an amendment to cut across the board 14 percent without affecting 
defense spending or foreign military financing to address our national 
security concerns.
  Why am I here doing this for the second day in a row? It is because 
the Democratic majority has failed the most fundamental leadership test 
of all. The majority promised if they got the majority in the last 
election, they would pass a budget. They have failed to do that. By 
failing to do that, we are here today proposing cuts to discretionary 
spending to the tune of 14 percent.
  Now, you might ask yourself, why 14 percent? That seems like an 
abnormal number to start with. Fourteen percent across the board is 
what it is going to take to balance the budget.
  I have chaired the Republican Study Committee's spending and budget 
task

[[Page H4685]]

force over the past several months. With a group of many of my 
colleagues, we worked tirelessly every week to propose a budget of our 
own. Right now, it is the only budget in this Congress that has been 
proposed. It cuts spending to the tune of trillions of dollars, and it 
balances in 6 years.
  To get to that balanced budget, it is an across-the-board 14 percent 
reduction in nondefense and discretionary spending.
  Mr. Chair, I am going to be back. I am going to come back time and 
time again, proposing this same amendment for across-the-board cuts of 
14 percent because my daughters' generation and the young people who 
are watching us in the gallery today are depending on it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to avoid references 
to occupants of the gallery.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the 
gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will 
be postponed.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Rouda) having assumed the chair, Mr. Van Drew, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2740) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________