June 19, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 103 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H4779-H4787]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3055, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, 
      AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020; RELATING TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2740, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN 
SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020; 
  AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 28, 2019, 
                          THROUGH JULY 8, 2019

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 445 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 445

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3055) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-18, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI 
     shall not apply during consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     considered pursuant to subsection (b), amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution, and pro forma 
     amendments described in section 4 of this resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as part of 
     amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this resolution 
     shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, 
     may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent 
     at any time before action thereon, shall not be subject to 
     amendment except as provided by section 4 of this resolution, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against further amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     provided by section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     15 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.
       Sec. 5.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 
     amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. In the case of sundry further amendments 
     reported from the Committee, the question of their adoption 
     shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the 
     question. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 6.  During consideration of H.R. 3055 in the Committee 
     of the Whole pursuant to this resolution, it shall not be in 
     order to consider an amendment proposing both a decrease in 
     an appropriation designated pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and an increase in an appropriation not 
     so designated, or vice versa.
       Sec. 7.  During the further consideration of H.R. 2740--
        (a) the amendment printed in part C of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole; and
       (b) the question of the adoption of further sundry 
     amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole shall be 
     put to the House en gros and without division of the 
     question.
       Sec. 8.  During consideration of H.R. 3055 or during the 
     further consideration of H.R. 2740, the Chair may entertain a 
     motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the chair 
     of the Committee on Appropriations or her designee. The Chair 
     may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words 
     of the bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 9.  On any legislative day during the period from June 
     28, 2019, through July 8, 2019--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time,

[[Page H4780]]

     within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the 
     Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the 
     adjournment.
       Sec. 10.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 9 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 11.  Each day during the period addressed by section 9 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XV.
       Sec. 12.  It shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing 
     for adjournment during the month of July, 2019.
       Sec. 13.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of June 27, 2019, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

                              {time}  1215


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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

  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.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lee of Nevada:

       Page 109, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 109, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 109, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 159, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. WOODALL. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of objection is withdrawn.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page H4781]]

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.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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.

                              {time}  1230

  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.

[[Page H4782]]

  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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Ms. PINGREE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chair of the Rules Committee 
for yielding me the time, and I thank his fellow committee members for 
the hard work that they do and their staff putting in so many long 
hours around this appropriations process.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 3055. I would 
like to focus my remarks on the fiscal year 2020 Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill.
  This bill includes robust funding for the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations, two Federal 
agencies that touch the life of every single American.
  I am proud to serve on the subcommittee that oversees this bill, and 
I am grateful to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Fortenberry for 
working together to come up with a bipartisan bill that supports the 
diversity of American agriculture.
  As an example of the growing diversity of growing techniques that are 
used by American farmers, in Maine, organic food sales increased 39 
percent between 2012 and 2017. Producing food free of toxic chemicals 
is better for the health of consumers, for the farmers, and for our 
environment.
  This bill supports growing markets, including organic and locally 
grown food, by increasing the funding for the National Organic Program 
to $18 million and providing $23.4 million for the Local Agriculture 
Market Program.
  The bill also boosts USDA efforts to reduce food waste by including 
$1 million for a new composting and food reduction pilot program, as 
well as $400,000 to establish the first Food Loss and Waste Reduction 
Liaison at the USDA. This is important because 30 to 40 percent of the 
food in this country is wasted. If food waste were a country, it would 
be number three in admitting global greenhouse gases.
  Additionally, the bill acknowledges that farmers are an integral part 
of playing a positive role in climate change solutions. There is report 
language urging the USDA to look at carbon markets for agriculture, 
supporting the USDA's Regional Climate Hubs, and encouraging the USDA 
to look at other opportunities to support farmers dealing with the 
effects of climate change.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Maine an 
additional 1 minute.
  Ms. PINGREE. Lastly, Madam Speaker, the bill includes language 
preventing the USDA from relocating the National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture and the Economic Research Service.
  I am deeply disappointed that the administration is moving forward 
with this ill-conceived plan, and I will continue fighting on this on 
behalf of NIFA and ERS employees.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule for H.R. 
3055.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), who is one of our young leaders.
  Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Woodall for yielding to me 
today.
  Madam Speaker, I offered four amendments to improve this bill and 
benefit northeastern Minnesota, but, like last week, all four were 
rejected. They were not rejected on the merits, of course, but they 
were rejected in the Rules Committee before even being debated on the 
floor.
  Two of my amendments would have removed onerous studies put in place 
by seasoned politicians from the Twin Cities and Washington, D.C. These 
studies in the committee report language are simply designed to delay 
important job-creating mining projects in my district.

[[Page H4783]]

  Unfortunately, these politicians play politics with the consequence 
of killing jobs because, to them, our livelihood and these mining 
projects are nothing more than some faraway idea in a faraway land. 
Their well-funded interest groups oppose these jobs, so they attempt to 
move the goalposts, lay down more red tape, require more studies, and 
make it impossible--or at least attempt to make it impossible--to 
permit.
  I say this: we can do both. We can mine and keep our environment 
pristine and clean.
  However, to my constituents, these projects are a reality. These 
good-paying jobs will put food on the table, and they will put gas in 
our car and clothes on the backs of our children. These jobs will allow 
us to work, recreate, play, and raise a family in northern Minnesota.
  These projects not only mean good-paying, union-protected mining jobs 
in cutting-edge industry, these projects can mean a larger property tax 
base, increased enrollment in our schools, and a population growth in 
our communities.
  These mining projects are a big part of our economic engine, yet 
Washington, D.C., and Twin City politicians can sneak language into a 
committee report to undermine a fair process, while arbitrarily 
rejecting my amendments.
  Another amendment I introduced would have ensured no funding is 
available to list the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. As I 
testified last night at the Rules Committee, the gray wolf has 
recovered. Even the Obama administration attempted to remove it from 
the Endangered Species Act in 2013.
  In northern Minnesota, wolf attacks on cattle and domestic pets are 
becoming far too common, burdening our farmers who already are 
struggling. One small northern Minnesota county alone accounted for 21 
confirmed wolf attacks on cattle, and local officials expect the number 
to be much higher, as many cattle that simply go missing are likely 
wolf attacks.

                              {time}  1245

  Because the gray wolf is listed as Federally endangered, the 
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is unable to control them. 
Our local experts, who truly understand the problem, have their hands 
tied because politicians in this town, Washington, D.C., think they 
know best. But they do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. STAUBER. I thought my final amendment was a no-brainer, Madam 
Speaker. It would have increased the Forest Products Timber Sale 
program by a little more than $6 million. Because it is in the National 
Forest System, it would have no negative budgetary effect.
  The Forest Products Timber Sale program provides needed resources for 
Forest Service personnel. It allows them to research, recycle forest 
products, and find new ways to market them.
  Meanwhile, an increase to this program means getting our loggers out 
in the woods and creating jobs for our communities. This would have 
directly benefited both Superior and Chippewa National Forests. It 
would have allowed our loggers and our Forest Service personnel to 
handle local environmental challenges like ensuring fallen trees do not 
contribute to forest fires.
  My amendments would have directly benefited the small, rural 
communities in northern Minnesota. Unfortunately, powerful politicians 
used the system to their advantage by rejecting my amendments and 
preventing even an open debate on the issues.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, who has done, I think, an extraordinary job.
  I was listening to my friend from Georgia, and--I don't know--maybe 
he forgot what it was like the previous 8 years. In the last Congress 
in which my friend from Georgia sat on the Rules Committee, we had the 
most closed-rule bills coming to the floor in the history of the 
Congress.
  Mr. McGovern has aptly pointed out how many amendments are in this 
bill. One of the reasons we are here night after night voting on dozens 
and dozens of amendments is because the Rules Committee got opened up 
under Mr. McGovern's leadership and his able staff.
  I congratulate them, and I salute them for opening up the process 
that my friends on the other side closed down.
  Madam Speaker, I also wanted to rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying bill, which would make critical domestic investments in law 
enforcement, infrastructure, and our Nation's veterans.
  I particularly want to commend the Appropriations Committee 
Chairwoman Lowey and Chairman Price for including in this bill a $150 
million matching program in capital investment for the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the Nation's capital.
  This funding is part of a successful Federal-State partnership and 
has been used for major investments to upgrade Metro. The three Metro 
jurisdictions--Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.--collectively 
match this $150 million annual payment with an equal amount of $150 
million, for a total of $350 million a year over a 10-year period.
  Without that continued Federal participation, this funding 
partnership would, in fact, cease, leaving a massive shortfall in 
WMATA's capital budget.
  I look forward to working with the chairwoman of Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Eleanor Holmes Norton, of Washington, D.C., and my 
colleagues to advance a long-term and enhanced reauthorization of 
dedicated funding for WMATA.
  I have introduced a bill, the METRO Accountability and Investment 
Act, would do just that and has the full support of every single member 
of the National Capital Delegation: Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, 
D.C.
  This bill uses a carrot-and-stick approach to both invest in the 
essential transit system as well as to hold the system accountable in 
providing a more safe, more reliable service. I believe, with those 
incentives, we can make Metro great again.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' on this rule and support the 
underlying bill as well. And I salute my colleagues for understanding 
how investments have positive returns on them.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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

[[Page H4784]]

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.
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my 
profound frustration with the majority on the Rules Committee. I am 
disappointed that the majority has chosen to cut members out of the 
process.
  I worked with colleagues across the aisle to introduce a bipartisan 
amendment to address the epidemic of Asian carp infestation in the 
Mississippi River and its tributaries. This invasive species has 
invaded the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins and continues to 
threaten our rural economies and native fisheries that thrive off of 
the recreational and sporting industries.
  Without a doubt, it is a major problem in my home State of Tennessee, 
as well as Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi. If these States continue 
to get cut out of the process, the problem will only get worse.
  I want to thank Members from both sides of the aisle who fought hard 
for this amendment, only to have it thrown out at the last minute. We 
deserve the opportunity to have the concerns of our constituents heard 
and addressed, but unfortunately, the process is broken.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman with 
whom I have the privilege of serving on the Rules Committee for his 
distinguished leadership of that committee and for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud the work of the Appropriations 
Committee in finally upholding our obligation to invest in gun violence 
prevention.
  The legislation before us this week would increase funding for the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives by over 9 percent. 
That additional funding will enable ATF to train more agents and hire 
more inspectors to fulfill the agency's mission of keeping illegal 
firearms out of criminal hands.
  More than 30 percent of guns identified in a crime have been stolen, 
yet ATF has long been denied the resources to properly inspect 
Federally licensed firearms dealers and respond to the flow of illegal 
guns onto our streets.
  This funding and the additional personnel it can provide will help 
ATF reach its inspection goals and enforce our existing gun laws, 
making communities across the Nation safer.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the committee for their hard work, and I urge 
my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia 
for yielding to me, and I rise to address an issue that is within the 
underlying bill and express my gratitude and support for the efforts on 
the part of the subcommittee chair, Congresswoman Betty McCollum, in 
particular.
  We have a situation in Sioux City, Iowa, and in that Siouxland area, 
much of that Native American population there are the Winnebago. Of 
course, they have their problems, Madam Speaker.
  One of those problems is drug and alcohol abuse and addiction. And 
some of the resources that have traditionally been delivered through 
the Indian Health Services have been suspended over the last years. 
And, without the note, I am going to say it is 7 or 8 years--something 
like that--given the meetings that I have been to.
  We asked that language be included in the report language in the 
underlying bill that is directed by this rule. Of course, that report 
language includes $81 million altogether for the Urban Indian Health 
Program, $29,685,000 above the enacted level. So there is an 
improvement in that. Then there is money there also, $1,429,000, for 
current services, et cetera.
  But the foundational language that I appreciate being in here so much 
is: ``The committee recognizes nonprofit organizations such as the 
Siouxland Human Investment Partnership that help American Indians in 
urban areas outside of the Urban Indian Health Program and encourages 
the service to offer technical assistance to such organizations 
whenever possible and within service authority.'' I very much 
appreciate that language.

  There is additional language that sets aside and says that: ``The 
Interior appropriations bill includes $2 million available for 11 
grants or contracts with public or private institutions services to 
provide alcohol or drug treatment services to Indians, including 
alcohol detoxification services.''
  We are in the process of building what we are calling Hope Street, 
which is going to be a location that allows them to go directly to that 
facility for that kind of help.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I wanted to conclude with this: The 
lead on this effort has been Mr. Frank LaMere. He had been a statesman 
for the Winnebagos for years and also for Native Americans in a broader 
sense, especially in the upper Midwest.
  He tragically passed away 2 days ago. His funeral is today. He worked 
on these projects for a lifetime.
  It is very fitting that we take action on one of his initiatives here 
in this Congress today. And I am hopeful that we will be able to take 
up H.R. 184, which also transfers the land back to the Winnebagos that 
they should so rightfully have.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a classmate of mine and a perennial leader in this 
institution.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. STIVERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
that the Rules Committee did not make in order a bipartisan amendment 
from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and I that would have 
added 100 immigration judge teams to address the backlog at the 
Executive Office of Immigration Review.
  With the record number of individuals and families seeking asylum,

[[Page H4785]]

there is a backlog of approximately 730,000 people who are waiting on 
hearings. They are waiting, on average, almost 2 years.
  Justice delayed is justice denied. It costs all of us, and it has 
many social prices, including things like separation of families and 
children and people held in detention centers. We need to do more.
  I commend the Appropriations Committee for adding some additional 
funding in the base text, but these 100 judges would have made a big 
difference. There are only 450 judge teams, as we sit here today.
  As we think about immigration, it is a very thorny issue. It becomes 
shirts and skins pretty quickly. There are very few things, Madam 
Speaker, that we agree on. One of them that Republicans and Democrats 
agree on is providing more judge teams so that we can process these 
claims faster.
  I hope to work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez). I know 
he is committed to it, and I am committed to it, as are the leaders of 
the Rules and Appropriations Committees, as we move through the process 
to enacting something that funds our government for this year.
  I hope that when we get to the final resolution, we will have more 
judge teams than are in the base text of this bill. I pledge to work 
with folks.
  This is a very important issue. It is one of the few issues that 
Republicans and Democrats agree on. It is one of the few issues that 
will make a big difference.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the entire Rules 
Committee for making in order another amendment that will speed the 
hiring process for these judge teams that Mr. Gonzalez and I also 
offered. That is a start, but we need more resources.
  In closing, I commit to working with Republicans and Democrats to get 
a solution that funds more judges to clear this backlog.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
appreciate his working with me on this important issue.
  I do want to say that I appreciate the floor staff and staff in the 
Parliamentarian's Office over the last few days. Obviously, we have had 
some interesting activities on the floor of the House that I think are 
important because I think it is important to vote and that this issue 
is important.
  I do want to thank the staff for all of their hard work in support of 
what goes on on the floor. As a former staffer, I know the amount of 
time that goes into that.
  Madam Speaker, I do believe that we should defeat the previous 
question. I do believe that we should move immediately to consideration 
of H.R. 3056, which my good friend from Alabama has put forward, as an 
important reflection of what the President and his Office of Management 
and Budget have asked for to deal with the humanitarian crisis at our 
border.
  We have gone over quite a bit of what has been going on on our 
border. Lost in all of that are the people, the humanitarian reality of 
what is happening at the border, the children, moms, families; the lack 
of places to put people; a Border Patrol that is overwhelmed, literally 
overwhelmed trying to do its job to secure the border of the United 
States.
  They literally don't know where to put people. They have them and 
they are going, ``What do I do with them?''
  They have to follow the law. They have to try to do screenings. They 
have to try to do health screenings. They have to try to perform the 
basic functions of their duty. Yet, they don't have the resources 
necessary to do it because this body, for whatever reason, refuses to 
do that.
  I know there are ongoing negotiations. There are ongoing 
conversations in the Senate and the House about trying to reach some 
agreement. But let's be honest: This has taken far too long since the 
President's initial request, leaving Border Patrol, ICE, and those who 
are dealing with this crisis at the border without the knowledge of 
whether they are going to have the resources necessary to do it and 
without any support for what they are doing today.
  Today, somebody is going to be abused at the border. Some little 
girl, some family, is going to be abused at the hands of the cartels 
that have operational control of our border.
  If you talk to anybody with deep knowledge of what is going on at the 
border, they know the cartels have operational control of our border. 
They are making hundreds of millions of dollars moving people, not just 
fentanyl, not just dangerous narcotics, but people. It is something 
that should end today.
  We have the power, this body, to end it today. We should just call up 
H.R. 3056 and pass it. It would solve the problem. It would at least 
solve the problem of what they are dealing with in the humanitarian 
crisis.
  What it won't do is solve the asylum problem. What it won't do is 
solve the catch-and-release problem. What it won't do is solve the 
problem of being able to take unaccompanied children safely back to 
families at home.
  None of that will be solved in H.R. 3056. But H.R. 3056 is the bare 
minimum of what we ought to do in this body to ensure that people have 
the resources necessary to care for people when we are trying to manage 
a broken border overrun with crime, where communities in Texas are 
being ravaged, where yesterday a mayor came here and gave a press 
conference talking about car chases in the streets, where fentanyl is 
pouring across our border.
  I urge this body to defeat the previous question and to move to H.R. 
3056.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page H4786]]

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.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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.

                              {time}  1315

  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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page H4787]]

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.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 445

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 14. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, 
     the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House 
     on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3056) to provide supplemental appropriations relating to 
     border security, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during 
     consideration of the bill. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 15. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3056.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________