June 25, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 107 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session
All in House sectionPrev49 of 111Next
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 107
(House of Representatives - June 25, 2019)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages H5104-H5108] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020 General Leave Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3351. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 460 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3351. The Chair appoints the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) to preside over the Committee of the Whole. {time} 1451 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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 3351) making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, with Mr. Keating in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, I first want to thank Ranking Member Tom Graves, the gentleman from Georgia, who I now have had the privilege of working with for a third year managing the bill. Our discussions have always been both valuable and productive, and I thank him for his partnership throughout this process. Of course, I always like to take the opportunity to thank the staff on both sides for all the hard work that goes on behind the scenes. In my personal office, that includes Doug and Juan. On our committee staff on the majority side, that includes Laura, Marybeth, Elliot, Aalok, Parker, and Lisa, and for the minority, John Martens. [[Page H5105]] The committee staff, in particular, sacrificed many long nights and weekends to get us to this stage. I am truly grateful, and I know Members on both sides share the same sentiment. The bill before us today provides $24.95 billion in total discretionary resources, including $400 million in adjustments for tax enforcement program integrity activities. The FSGG bill encompasses a wide range of programs, everything from the Internal Revenue Service to the Federal courts to the District of Columbia to the Small Business Administration. In total, the bill includes $12 billion for the IRS, an increase of more than 6 percent above the President's request, a good first step toward restoring cuts this agency has suffered for almost a decade. Notably, the bill almost doubles the amount provided in FY19 to the systems modernization account to support the IRS IT modernization efforts. Investing in the IRS will support more effective and efficient enforcement activities to help close the tax gap, improve taxpayer experience by reducing wait times, and increase support to those trying to navigate the complex Tax Code. My friend across the aisle speaks a lot about deficit reduction, and as a fiscal moderate, I understand and agree. But underfunding tax enforcement for all these years has been penny-wise and pound-foolish. The IRS generates $4 in revenue for every $1 in enforcement expenses. That is fiscally sound policy that we should all support. On the national security front, the bill also provides increases totaling $15.6 million for Treasury Department offices and programs focused on combating money laundering, enforcing sanctions, and countering the financing of terrorism. The bill includes funding for numerous important independent agencies critical to the operation of the entire Federal Government, as well as communities throughout the country. Let me highlight just a few of the many investments provided in this bill. One of the top priorities this year has been to help States and local governments meet the challenge of restoring the security and integrity of our elections. To this end, the bill includes $600 million in funding the Election Assistance Commission. Just last month, Special Counsel Robert Mueller described Russia's concerted attack on our political system in 2016, saying, ``There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.'' He detailed the Russian efforts and specified that they were designed and timed to interfere with and damage a Presidential candidate. It was a purposeful strategy involving sophisticated cyber techniques to influence the outcome of our election, the underpinning of American democracy whereby American citizens alone decide who represents them in government. Mr. Mueller concluded with a call to action, that the efforts to interfere in our election ``deserve the attention of every American.'' I couldn't agree more. This is not a partisan matter. If anything, the challenge of securing our election systems should unite all Americans. Another major priority in this bill has been to support the regulatory agencies funded in this bill, especially the financial regulatory agencies that protect consumers, taxpayers, and investors, and to help police Wall Street and prevent another financial meltdown. We boost funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission by $148 million above 2019, $104 million above the budget request. We also provide increases for the Federal Trade Commission to help refocus on preventing anticompetitive practices and for various inspector general offices that deal with financial matters. We give an $8.5 million increase to the Consumer Product Safety Commission to better protect our families from potentially dangerous products. The bill also makes targeted investments to make sure that small businesses on Main Street and low-income communities in too-often forgotten neighborhoods, both urban and rural, have access to the capital and assistance needed to thrive. For instance, this bill increases entrepreneurial development programs at the Small Business Administration by $34 million above 2019, to $280 million. Just as significant, this bill rejects the President's proposal to eliminate grant programs under the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which directly supports the expansion of affordable housing, small business creation, and infrastructure growth in underserved and rural areas, in addition to supplying credit to revitalize neglected communities. Instead, the bill boosts funding by $50 million for this extremely successful and broadly bipartisan program. Ultimately, I am a capitalist who believes in the power of the free market economy. But I also believe there needs to be reasonable measures and checks in place to make sure our economy is benefiting everyone and not just a select few at the top. If you believe, as I do, that fraudsters shouldn't be able to manipulate markets and scam seniors of their hard-earned savings, and that you shouldn't have to be a Fortune 500 company to access affordable financing for your business, then you should support the investments this bill makes to empower everyday investors, consumers, and entrepreneurs. Finally, the bill takes significant steps toward reducing undue congressional interference in local D.C. affairs and eliminating restrictions on the District that do not apply to other parts of the Nation. Importantly, it ended the uniquely restrictive prohibition on the use of locally raised funds for abortion, thereby placing the District in the same position as the 50 States, in that regard. It also discontinues the ban on Federal funds for local needle exchange programs and allows the District to implement local law legalizing marijuana, as has been done in most States. In closing, I would like to reiterate how grateful I am to all the staff who helped put this product together. It is a bill that we all can be proud of, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1500 Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to express some concerns and opposition to the current bill before us, the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill. First, before I get into some of the highlights of our opposition, I have been through this process before last year as chairman of this subcommittee, so I truly understand and am aware of the hard work that Mr. Quigley and his team have put into this bill, and I commend them for navigating a process that is not easy and making it to this point that we are here today. Now, while I don't support every piece of this bill, I certainly value the approach that Chairman Quigley took and the strong working relationship that he and I have both had over the years and continue to have. The bill we are addressing includes, I will say, a few key priorities that have been really important to my Republican colleagues and myself, and we appreciate that and look forward to supporting those in the future. And it does strike a bit of a bipartisan tone in a way that I know that we all appreciate, and our constituents value the most, and, quite frankly, we could use a little bit more of that around here. And I know you would agree with that, Mr. Chairman. Now, while this is a really good starting point, and that is how I will characterize where we are today, we are at a starting point, a small foundation that we can build from, the bill, as drafted, is just not something that I can support at this time, nor my Republican colleagues, but I would like to highlight some of the areas that I think we need to work on. First and foremost, if we were to have a budget agreement--and that is a big if, because there is a lot of discussion about budget agreements, but there has certainly not been any movement, and that is one of the bigger problems the new majority has, is navigating the budget process, seeing how a budget hasn't even been passed out of committee. This bill will continue the spending that our Nation has seen at a skyrocketing fashion, one that we just [[Page H5106]] don't need to accept. The total level of discretionary spending under this bill increases by 8 percent over last year. That is a significant number. Last year, when I was chair, we were proposing cutting this bill by 5 percent, and this year we are 13 points different, going up 8 percent, which is nearly a $2 billion increase. Secondly, this bill blocks the administration from doing what they are so focused on right now, and that is securing this Nation and our country, particularly at the southern border. I am sure we will hear later this week if the new majority gets the votes to bring a bill to the floor about a border supplemental, but you have to ask yourself, why do we even need that supplemental? We had an opportunity earlier this year with the conference committee report to provide the funds the administration requested, and yet the new majority rejected that then, and now comes forward with a supplemental, but while at the same time, ironically, obstructing the spending of the administration currently from spending funds to secure the border through this bill. So the irony of the failure of the conference committee report, the inability to get a supplemental to the floor for a vote this week, but yet refusing to allow the administration to secure the border through this bill in addition, so it is ironic, and that is something that we certainly would like to see restored. But also, this would remove any oversight and accountability that this body has over the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is not like a city in any of our States. It is a district. It is a different entity under a different charter, of which the greatest Nation on the planet's capital exists, and I believe we should continue that oversight, but yet this gives the District of Columbia a blank checkbook here. Then next I would say, you know, we have talked about bipartisanship. This bill does omit some longstanding bipartisan provisions that we have always agreed on, and I am not sure why we would object to them today, or why the new majority would object to them today, but one, in particular, is to allow taxpayer funding for the ending of the lives of the innocent unborn. Mr. Chairman, I don't know why we would go there today when year after year after year, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, have always come together and said those lives are precious and we should protect them from the use of taxpayer funds being used to eliminate their life. And then I am concerned that the bill as it is currently written would force schools to withdraw from the Opportunity Scholarship Program. One of the great successes this body has enjoyed over the years is celebrating in the success of children of the District of Columbia benefiting from a scholarship program, to see their lives improved and enriched and move on into a better future. In fact, the scholarship program has a great record of success, with 98 percent of 12th grade students participating graduating, a 98 percent graduation rate. Eighty-six percent of them are accepted to a 2- or 4-year college after graduation. We should not be making it harder for these schools to operate. We shouldn't be making it harder for kids to be able to enjoy this opportunity. In fact, quite frankly, it is just an assault on the low- income children right here in the District of Columbia. It is also disappointing that this bill drops a long-standing prohibition against requiring contractors to disclose campaign contributions as a part of the Federal procurement process. This process should be about getting the best service by the best company for the best price for the American people, the best to assist our constituents. Instead, now, if the provision as it is stated in this bill continues, we might be creating a new higher bidder scenario in which it is the highest bidder of political contributions going to a company might get the bid instead of something different, such as the best price from the best company for the best service. Now, we all know that these are poison pills that Members of both sides shouldn't be forced to swallow here today. As long as this bill is fashioned in this manner, Mr. Chairman, we know that it is not going to be signed into law. Just yesterday President Trump said that if this bill were on his desk in this current form, he would veto this legislation. So I know we are going to have a robust debate today, and maybe we can improve upon this foundation, but with the Federal debt exceeding $22 trillion, we just can't afford to spend more. We don't need to spend more on general governmental activities. Just because we can spend it doesn't mean we should, nor should we spend it at any time in the future when we have the opportunity to cut, and instead, today here we are spending more. So it is up to us. Let's set the example, Mr. Chairman. Let's leave this country's pocketbook in better shape for our kids and our grandkids. Mr. Chair, as I close, I do want to finish on a positive note, because we do have a great working relationship. I want to thank Chairman Quigley. I want to thank his team. They have addressed some of the priorities that are important to us, and they have crafted a small foundation which I know we can all work from in the days ahead. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished chairwoman of the full committee. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Quigley for yielding, and I would like to congratulate Chairman Quigley, Ranking Member Graves, and the outstanding staff for the bill before us. House Democrats are fighting to ensure that America is safe, strong, and moving forward. The investments in this bill to fund financial regulators and small businesses improve the financial security of every American. With the inclusion of funding for election security, we can safeguard our democracy. This bill would provide $12 billion for the IRS, including $2.56 billion for taxpayer services, and $290 million for business systems modernization. These increases are particularly important to secure sensitive data housed at the IRS. Small businesses are the foundation of our economy, and this bill gives them and their employees a better shot at success. A nearly 40 percent increase to the Small Business Administration includes a 14 percent increase for entrepreneurial development programs like Women's Business Centers. To combat the attacks on our democracy by foreign powers, the bill would provide $16.2 million for Election Assistance Commission operating expenses, a 76 percent increase, and $600 million for election security grants. Other important issues would make DACA recipients eligible for Federal employment and prohibit the use of funds from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to construct the President's ill-conceived border wall. What is not in this bill is also noteworthy, starting with objectionable riders from previous years that threatened Home Rule for D.C., such as the ban on D.C. using its own local funds to support abortion services, needle exchanges, and the legalization of marijuana. The bill would also eliminate three riders related to the SEC and FEC aimed at thwarting transparency and disclosures of political contributions. This bill would invest in a future that supports the security of our data and our elections, while setting up our communities, making sure that our communities succeed. Mr. Chair, I urge support for the bill. Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey. She has done a great job this year with the committee, and she is absolutely right in congratulating Mr. Quigley on his good work this year. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), our Republican leader of the full Appropriations Committee. Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Graves for yielding. I appreciate the work that he and Chairman Quigley have done to craft a Financial Services and General Government bill for fiscal year 2020. The bill includes many priorities of Members on both sides of the aisle, such as support for small businesses, [[Page H5107]] drug control programs, and the Treasury Department's counterterrorism and financial intelligence efforts. However, I am concerned that there are several controversial items in the bill regarding immigration policy, the border wall, collective bargaining, and many other provisions that will tie this administration's hands. Regarding the District of Columbia, this bill fails to provide appropriate oversight. It is disappointing that the bill does not include a longstanding pro-life provision regarding the use of D.C. local funds. I am also troubled that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected an amendment offered in committee by Dr. Harris that would prevent the District of Columbia from legalizing solicitation of prostitution or profiting from the sex work of others. The possibility of the bill pending before the D.C. Council becoming law is appalling, and Congress must make it clear that this is unacceptable. Congress should not allow prostitution to be legalized in our Nation's capital. Additionally, the bill includes an 8 percent increase in spending above the current year. This level of spending is excessive, and as I have said before, this bill is written using an unrealistic top line funding level. In order for our work to be meaningful and produce bills that can be signed into law, leaders from both parties and the administration must come together and develop a mutually agreeable funding framework. Then we can turn to drafting appropriations bills with bipartisan support that can be signed into law. In closing, I would like to thank Chairwoman Lowey, Chairman Quigley, Mr. Graves, as well as all of the subcommittee members and the staff for their hard work on this bill. Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and a member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee. Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this bill, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. Mr. Chair, I want to start by congratulating my good friend and colleague, Chairman Mike Quigley, for his leadership in bringing our tenth appropriations bill to the House floor. Speaking from experience, I know this is no easy task, and I am sure that the relationship between he and Mr. Graves will have a final product that we can all vote for. I am proud that the work that has been accomplished here takes care of so many issues. This bill provides $24.95 billion to assist elderly and low-income taxpayers; support our entrepreneurs and grow our small businesses; ensure the products of our store shelves are safe for children and families; protect our economy by policing Wall Street; protect and strengthen the integrity of our election systems; and provide a 3.1 percent pay raise for Federal employees; and, once again, empower the District of Columbia to handle its own local affairs. {time} 1515 The administration has proposed to eliminate the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, risking the public-private investments that are generating economic growth in places like my district in the South Bronx. In response, Congress is investing $300 million for this invaluable program, an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2019. This bill also provides $600 million in Election Assistance Commission security grants to help State election officials improve the security and integrity of our elections. Our election systems remain vulnerable, and additional investments like this can give voters the peace of mind that, when they cast their ballot, their vote will count and be counted correctly. As we approach elections this fall in several States across the country and the Presidential election next year, we must be ready to combat any attempts to disrupt our democratic institutions. The Small Business Administration will receive nearly $1 billion to continue providing technical assistance and other services our Nation's businessmen need to help get their business ideas off the ground. Out of the total amount, $150 million will go to the Small Business Development Centers Program, $35 million will help provide Microloan technical assistance, and $30 million will go toward supporting and investing in women-owned businesses through the Women's Business Centers. These investments will help create jobs. Last but not least, this bill once again restores home rule to the District of Columbia. I cannot think of anything more insulting than telling any city across our country how they can spend their locally raised funds or requiring congressional approval to implement laws their duly elected government officials enact. The intrusive policy riders the bill removes will ensure D.C. can govern itself without congressional meddling and address the challenges it faces in serving its residents. This is now our 10th bill on the floor. Our Appropriations Committee is doing the work of the people, and I congratulate, once again, Mr. Quigley for his work. I stand ready to vote for this with great enthusiasm. Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Serrano's years of work on the subcommittee as well as his leadership on the Commerce, Justice, and Science Committee. It has been a joy to work with him and learn from him over the years. We are going to miss his presence after this term, as I know he has announced he is not running for reelection. I now yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the Republican leader of the Education and Labor Committee. Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3351. One of the many faults of this legislation is language designed to eliminate educational options for low-income families in the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, every Member of this body wants all students to receive an excellent education. That is why Congress authorized the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program in 2004, which provided low-income students in the District of Columbia the chance to escape public schools that were not working for them and find a private school that would meet their educational needs. Congress has reauthorized this program twice, most recently in 2017. We know the program works. Just recently, a witness testifying before the Committee on Education and Labor described her son pursued private school options through the program in part because he was bullied in his public elementary school. He ultimately graduated from his private high school as salutatorian and is now attending the University of Maryland. This family's story is not uncommon. A Department of Education study on the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program found that students receiving scholarships were 21 percent more likely to graduate high school than their public school peers. An Urban Institute study of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program released earlier this year found similar results. Students participating in that program were more likely to attend and graduate college than their public school peers. If we truly believe in improving educational outcomes for students, supporting educational freedom is something all of us should support. Unfortunately, the bill before us today seeks to strip these choices from low-income parents in D.C. under the guise of protecting students' civil rights. For example, the language would require private schools to follow most of the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. On the surface, that sounds like it makes sense, but families of students with disabilities are exercising their freedom to pursue private school options because the public school has failed their child. They believe the private school provides an educational program that will provide a better outcome for their student. They know that student better than the Federal Government does. Who are you to take that choice away? And to be clear, the system the majority wants to shackle these families with is failing. Since 2007, the Department of Education has evaluated States and the [[Page H5108]] District of Columbia on their compliance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In every single year since then, the District's public school system has failed to meet the requirements of the law. To put this in plain language, the majority wants to return students who have found educational choices that work for them to a failing system. And they are couching this policy in civil rights terms. That is shameful. The majority will presumably pass this bill, but I urge the Senate to reject this attempt to hide a special interest giveaway behind civil rights language. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and a member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee. Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2020 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. The legislation before the House today is vitally important to ensuring the Federal Government and the U.S. economy can work for the American people. This bill safeguards our financial system and provides a fair playing field for our taxpayers. It funds those agencies that cultivate a vibrant and competitive telecommunications system that support new businesses and that make sure our consumers are safe from dangerous and defective products. Perhaps more importantly, this bill helps protect the integrity of our elections. As has been illustrated over the last few years, it is imperative that we provide the States with the resources to ensure the sanctity of our democratic institution. This bill includes $600 million in grant funding for election security grants and, additionally, $16.2 million is included for the Election Assistance Commission operating expenses, an increase of $7 million above the 2019 enacted level. I am also pleased that this legislation includes a total of $2.6 billion for Taxpayer Services, which provides assistance to the elderly and low-income taxpayers to help navigate our complex Tax Code, as well as increases in funding to address the growing tax gap. Further, the legislation rejects the administration's elimination of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, a successful program that leverages public-private investment to revitalize and provide jobs to distressed rural and urban communities. This bill also further embodies our democratic mode of government by supporting home rule for the District of Columbia. Finally, I thank Chairman Quigley for rejecting the administration's misguided plan to merge the GSA and OPM. The GSA manages our Federal properties, while OPM acts as the chief human resources agency for our Federal workforce. The administration's unilateral proposal to merge these two agencies without any analysis of cost, rationale, or risk would disrupt both agencies without contributing to their mission. It would potentially politicize our Federal career employees and create confusion and bureaucracy for no discernable reason. To close, I would like to thank full Committee Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, Subcommittee Chairman Quigley, and Ranking Member Graves for their work on this bill. As a member of the House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. Torres of California) having assumed the chair, Mr. Keating, 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. 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, had come to no resolution thereon. ____________________
All in House sectionPrev49 of 111Next