July 29, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 134 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages H3890-H3897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7617, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1067 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1067

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7617) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2021, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-60, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply 
     during consideration of the bill. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to

[[Page H3891]]

     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 90 
     minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations; (2) the further amendments described in 
     section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, 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 the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution 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 30 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, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 4. All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 5. During consideration of the amendments described in 
     sections 2 and 3 of 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN: Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 1067, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 7617, the Defense, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water 
Development, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland 
Security, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2021.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7617 under a structured 
rule, with 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Lowey. It makes 
in order 340 amendments and provides that the chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations or her designee may offer amendments en bloc, which will 
be debatable for 30 minutes. Finally, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the measure before us is what it looks like when you 
don't take an ax to our priorities, as the President has advocated, but 
instead, you invest in what is important to the American people. This 
is what it looks like when we actually lay the groundwork for a real 
recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, instead of just wishing it away 
as this President has done.
  There are billions and billions of dollars in emergency funding here 
to build and repair water projects, to modernize energy infrastructure, 
and rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure in this time of 
COVID-19. These projects will help get Americans back to work and kick-
start our economy.
  The bills included in this underlying package also make long-term 
investments in our Nation: In food safety, curbing tobacco use, and 
combating domestic abuse and sexual assault; all at levels that exceed 
the President's budget request.
  There is also landmark grant funding to carry out police reform 
efforts, and, yes, even funding to address the health impacts of 
climate change because, Mr. Speaker, this majority believes in science, 
and we believe in facts.
  This bill also includes provisions to stop costly, endless wars by 
sunsetting the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the 
AUMF, repealing the 2002 AUMF, and prohibiting funds for the use of 
force against Iran.
  Just as important as what this measure does is what it ensures this 
administration cannot do: Like steal money for President Trump's 
ineffective border wall, implement its dangerous plan to restart 
explosive nuclear testing, or launch another endless war using the 2001 
AUMF.
  This is about addressing our Nation's emergency needs during this 
pandemic today, while building a strong foundation for the future.
  Thinking that this pandemic will magically vanish, as this President 
has suggested, is not a plan. Hoping that COVID-19 just goes away 
without a vaccine, as this President has done, is not a plan.
  Real resources like those in this bill, especially when taken with 
those in the HEROES Act that passed this House over 2 months ago, will 
enable us to confront this virus and build a true recovery.
  340 amendments were made in order under this rule, many of which will 
make this bill even stronger.
  Among them is an amendment I authored to provide more money for radon 
testing and mitigation. A national investigation recently uncovered 
this harmful chemical in public housing units across the country, 
including in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts.
  This administration, and HUD in particular, has an obligation to act. 
This language will help ensure more funding is there to help protect 
people's health and safety.
  I am also proud that the underlying bill sets aside $10 million to 
create a new nationwide pilot program to help the many grandparents who 
are raising their grandchildren today. This funding will provide more 
access to safe, affordable, and appropriate housing.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two policy ideas put forward during this 
process that I especially want to highlight.
  The first was an effort led by my good friend, Congressman   Bobby 
Rush, to create a more 21st century approach toward Cuba. This 
President has taken us back to a failed Cold War policy that held our 
country back for more than 50 years, a policy that hurts the Cuban 
people, and a policy that denies American farmers and American 
businesses the opportunity to engage with their counterparts in Cuba. 
In short, our policy, Mr. Speaker, is an embarrassment.
  The gentleman from Illinois wanted to mitigate some of the pain U.S. 
policies impose on the Cuban people by providing easier access to food 
and medicine and by making it easier for families in the United States 
to send support to their relatives still on the island, especially 
during this pandemic.
  Now, although the gentleman from Illinois has withdrawn his 
amendments, I want to recognize him for his leadership. He has shined a 
bright light on a failed policy that badly hurts the Cuban people, and 
it urgently needs to change.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to change our policy. We must and we will change 
our policy, and I look forward to being part of that effort. If we can 
trade with China and Russia and Vietnam, we certainly can trade with 
Cuba. If Americans can travel virtually to any country in the world, we 
ought to be able to travel to Cuba without restriction. And if we 
really care about human rights and human suffering, then we ought to 
recognize that the American blockade on Cuba is causing tremendous 
suffering to the Cuban people.

                              {time}  1030

  So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will in short order take a fresh look 
at our policy and move to a more mature, sensible, thoughtful approach 
to dealing with Cuba.

[[Page H3892]]

  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Ayanna 
Pressley, along with Representatives Lee, Ocasio-Cortez, Schakowsky, 
Chu, DeGette, Tlaib, Omar, Pocan, and Speier.
  Together they led an important effort to repeal the Hyde Amendment. 
This disastrous policy prevents so many, particularly low-income women 
and women of color from deciding their own future.
  Constitutional rights should not belong to just the wealthy or the 
privileged. They belong to every single American, regardless of where 
they get their health insurance.
  And although this amendment wasn't able to be made in order here 
because of several budgetary points of order, I want to say loud and 
clear here today that they are right. We need to end this 
discriminatory policy, and I look forward to working with them to do 
just that. This is a fight that we must have.
  Mr. Speaker, getting this broad package here today was a herculean 
effort by so many in this Chamber, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this rule and the underlying measure. Let's get our communities 
the resources they need, and let's get our economy back on its feet.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today's debate is on a rule providing for consideration 
of H.R. 7617, which contains 6 of the 12 annual appropriations bills 
recently reported by the House Appropriations Committee. These six 
bills include the two largest, Defense, and Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, as well as the titles covering Commerce, Justice, 
Science, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General 
Government, and finally, Transportation, Housing, and Urban 
Development.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is 
always encouraging to see the appropriations process moving forward. 
Passing these 12 bills is one of the biggest responsibilities we have 
as Members of Congress; to fund the government and keep it open and 
operating for our constituents.
  Despite that great responsibility, I am disappointed by the partisan 
approach taken by the majority in crafting the bills in this package, 
and I cannot support them at this time.
  I single out the majority in my comments because the 12 bills that 
were reported out of committee this year were all written to satisfy 
the concerns and wishes of one party, the Democratic party. While that 
is often how the appropriations process begins, it is ultimately never 
where it ends. At the end of the day, for us to pass 12 full-year 
fiscal year 2021 appropriations bills, in an era of divided government, 
it will require Members on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers 
of Congress to reach consensus. That ultimately means that the partisan 
bills like those we are considering today are nonstarters and cannot 
become law.
  During markup on these measures in the Appropriations Committee and 
again yesterday in the Rules Committee, Republicans rightfully raised 
several reasons why these bills cannot become law and should not pass 
the House. Those objections were ignored. Consequently, today's bill 
will have very little, if any, Republican support. That means these 
bills are effectively dead on arrival in the United States Senate and 
would never be signed by a Republican President, and there are a lot of 
reasons for that.
  First, all 12 appropriations bills are marked at 302(b) allocation 
numbers that violate the fiscal year 2021 total spending limit 
negotiated in the current budget agreement just last year.

                              {time}  1030

  Indeed, I remind my friends, Congress is lawfully bound to uphold 
that agreement.
  Instead of abiding by the negotiated numbers that were agreed to in 
both Houses of Congress by both parties and by the President, the 
majority has used a huge amount of emergency-designated funds as a 
workaround scheme to break that good faith budget agreement.
  In this bill alone, there is well over $200 billion in so-called 
emergency spending. That violates the budget agreement. This will make 
it much more difficult to negotiate final bills with the Senate that 
can actually become law.
  But what is more disappointing than the widespread use of budget 
gimmicks is the prolific use of partisan policy riders throughout the 
appropriations bills, including these six. These riders are simply 
unacceptable, and they must come out before bipartisan agreement can be 
reached.
  Consider the bill that I am most familiar with, which came out of the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee, where I am the ranking member. The text of that bill 
includes a wide variety of harmful riders.
  In the first instance, the bill includes partisan policy 
prescriptions that will tie the hands of the administration with 
respect to Title X family planning. Most notably, the riders would 
force the administration to resume grants awarded to controversial 
groups that provide abortions, such as Planned Parenthood, and it would 
prevent the administration from granting waivers that protect deeply 
held religious beliefs of institutions, organizations, and individuals 
that provide vital services funded in the bill.
  The Labor, Health and Human Services title includes riders that would 
undo the Department of Labor's rule clarifying the so-called joint 
employer standard. If this policy rider were enacted, it would cause 
chaos for thousands of businesses and millions of employees, leaving 
them uncertain about the nature of their employment relationship.
  Not to be outdone, the bill also includes riders micromanaging and 
second-guessing how Health and Human Services administers the 
Unaccompanied Alien Children Program, which will ensure that the 
individuals devoting their energies to assisting such unaccompanied 
minors will find themselves devoting their energy, becoming wrapped up 
in evermore deeply and congressionally mandated red tape.
  The same can be said for the other divisions in this package. 
Throughout this minibus, the majority has inserted policy riders that 
tie the hands of the administration.
  They have limited the ability of the administration to reprogram 
funds even when necessary. They have inserted rider after rider aimed 
at preventing the President from spending money on barriers and 
security measures at the southern border. And they have removed 
countless bipartisan policy revisions that have been routinely carried 
in previous years' bills.
  Let me say it again: Partisan riders like these must come out before 
a bipartisan agreement can be reached.
  On top of this, while I understand we are living through 
unprecedented times and have had to rightly limit our physical 
interactions, I have serious concerns about considering these bills in 
a six-division, trillion-dollar spending bill.
  Debating these measures together as one shuts out the ability of most 
rank-and-file Members to have their ideas heard on the floor, or limits 
them to having their amendments included in massive all-or-nothing en 
bloc packages, and places many Members in an untenable all-or-nothing 
vote on both the en bloc packages and ultimately final passage of the 
bill.
  We can do better than that, Mr. Speaker, and we must do better than 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am still hopeful that we can reach a bipartisan 
appropriations deal for the full year. If we can get the prolific 
emergency spending and budget gimmicks out of these bills, and if we 
can eliminate all partisan policy riders, then I think the majority in 
the House will have a workable starting point to begin negotiations 
with the Senate toward a bipartisan deal.
  Under such circumstances, they would still not be the bills I would 
have written, but they would be a reasonable basis on which to begin 
negotiations. But until then, these bills are going absolutely nowhere. 
They will not pass the Senate, and they will not be signed by the 
President into law.

[[Page H3893]]

  Frankly, I do not believe they should be passed by this House, 
either.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And I acknowledge, I think we 
all acknowledge, that we are living in an unusual moment, dealing with 
a health pandemic that has already claimed the lives of 150,000 of our 
fellow citizens, that has infected millions of our other fellow 
citizens, and we are trying to do our best to operate and to get the 
people's business done amidst this pandemic.
  So, we have given committee chairs en bloc authority to try to 
consider amendments en bloc so we can consider more ideas.
  In the package that we are bringing before the House today, there are 
341 amendments in order. Some of them will require separate votes on 
amendments because, quite frankly, there isn't a consensus on some of 
them. But many of them are good ideas that can be put in an en bloc 
amendment and be incorporated into this bill.
  I just say that because the alternative in the middle of this 
pandemic is to have fewer amendments, and I don't think that that is 
something that Members would want to see happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 
7617, the second appropriations package.
  The funding included in this bill will advance crucial priorities 
like increased broadband access, advancing medical research, and 
supporting police reform. These investments are necessary as we 
continue to combat the spread of COVID-19 and encourage economic 
recovery.
  By providing $61 billion in emergency funding to the FCC, we can 
expand internet access to unserved and underserved households. As 
schools continue to adjust to distance learning, I believe every 
student, regardless of their family's ZIP Code or income bracket, 
deserves a reliable internet connection to participate in the modern 
classroom.
  The rule also provides consideration of my amendment to advance 
breakthroughs in medical research. My amendment directs an additional 
$4.5 million to DOD's Congressionally Directed Medical Research 
Program. This program funds high-impact projects, including medical 
research for rare diseases like bone marrow failure.
  Some of you remember we lost my late husband, Bob Matsui, to MDS, a 
bone marrow failure disease. Countless other families across the 
country rely on the Defense program's work to discover and develop new 
therapies and cures, especially for rare diseases.
  I am also very glad that this program dedicates $400 million in grant 
funding to help implement needed police reform. This includes pattern 
and practice analyses and independent investigations of law enforcement 
departments across the country.
  While there is still much work to be done, this funding will move us 
closer to an America where all are treated equally under the law.
  This is a strong comprehensive bill, and I look forward to supporting 
it on the floor soon.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond quickly to my friend.
  While we appreciate the number of amendments made in order, let's 
just look at the statistics. Twenty percent of all the amendments in 
this bill are Republican, 60 percent are Democrat, 20 percent are 
bipartisan.
  Frankly, I am pleased to have hit 20 percent, because for the year, 
we are down at about 17 percent of the amendments.
  So while we appreciate the difficult conditions, I also remind my 
friend that in the last Congress, when we held the majority, they 
actually always had more amendments than the Republicans did. So let's 
not get carried away with the difficulties of the situation or the 
fairness of the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), my good friend, a distinguished Member, 
and an outstanding member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time.
  We should at least comply with the law. I would think that a law-
writing body, Congress, and the Appropriations Committee should at 
least follow the law.
  Well, again, this rule doesn't do that, and this bill doesn't do 
that. Let me explain what I am talking about.
  Spent nuclear fuel and defense waste is at 121 sites in 39 States 
across this country. The DOE, Department of Energy, was supposed to 
take title to this spent fuel and this defense waste in 1998.
  Appropriators will like to hear this number. We spend unbudgeted out 
of the Judgment Fund $2.2 million every day--$2.2 million unbudgeted--
unappropriated through legal action because we are not complying with 
the law.

                              {time}  1045

  The Nuclear Waste Fund currently is booked as having $40 billion in 
it, Mr. Speaker, and that $40 billion comes from ratepayers, not even 
Federal money. It is people whose States have nuclear power. They pay 
into this fund to find a safe disposal site.
  Over the past 30 years, $15 billion has been spent. I brought 
examples of that $15 billion. Mr. Speaker, this is one box of five of 
the Department of Energy's scientific analysis of the safety of Yucca 
Mountain, the long-term repository. They finished that, and then they 
turned over all of their science.
  Let me tell you who was part of this billions of dollars of research 
by eight national labs, which comes through this appropriation bill. 
Eight labs, the U.S. Geological Survey, and many universities helped do 
this research. Then, they sent this research to our independent nuclear 
safety agency called the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and they issued 
a five-volume report.
  This is the fifth volume of that, which says: Using Yucca Mountain as 
a long-term geological repository would be safe for a million years, 
not 10,000 years, not 100,000 years, not 500,000 years, a million 
years.
  Now, who did this research? Well, you had experts in geochemistry, 
hydrology, climatology, structural geology, volcanology, seismology, 
and health physics, as well as chemical, civilian, mechanical, nuclear, 
mining materials, and geological engineering.
  If we want to use science, want to talk about science, science from 
the Department of Energy, science reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission says Yucca Mountain will be safe for a million years for 
long-term storage of not just spent fuel but also of our defense waste.
  So, what happens when we legally block the final portion of the law? 
And the final portion would be: Let's get money to allow Nevada to 
argue the science. That is what they always say: Let's argue the 
science. Well, this bill, like other bills coming out of the 
Appropriations Committee, has zero money to debate the science and do 
the adjudication.
  So if it had money, and this is part of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, if the adjudication were to resume, one or more boards 
would hear evidence and issue decisions on approximately 300 admitted 
issues contesting DOE's application or the NRC's staff decision to 
adopt the DOE environmental impact statement.
  If we would finish the last portion of this debate and have the--it 
is actually called the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. They 
would look at the science. They would hear Nevada's complaints, and 
they would render judgment. That is why we go to courts and stuff to 
resolve conflict.
  If they don't like that decision, Nevada can appeal the Board's 
decision to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If they don't like the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's final decision, they can go to the U.S. 
Court of Appeals.
  Now, let's address a few things about the State of Nevada. I include 
in the Record Nye County Resolution No. 2020-11, which passed this 
year. I will read a few portions of it. The title is: ``A Resolution of 
the Nye County Board of County Commissioners Supporting the Efforts to 
Complete the Yucca Mountain Licensing Process and Resolve the Nuclear 
Waste Issue.''
  Here is one of the whereases. ``Whereas, almost 1,000 nuclear devices 
were detonated on the Nevada test site.''

[[Page H3894]]

  ``Whereas, Nye County and eight other Nevada counties have passed 
resolutions supporting the completion of the Yucca Mountain licensing 
process by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine if Yucca 
Mountain is safe.''
  So, that is nine Nevada counties that say we should move forward.
  ``Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Nye County Board of 
Commissioners does hereby continue to support the efforts to complete 
the Yucca Mountain licensing process and resolve the nuclear waste 
issue.''
  So, that is Nye County, which has the site of Yucca Mountain.

                   Nye County Resolution No. 2020-11


A RESOLUTION OF THE NYE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTING 
   THE EFFORTS TO COMPLETE THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN LICENSING PROCESS AND 
                    RESOLVE THE NUCLEAR WASTE ISSUE

       Whereas, Nye County Nevada is the third largest county in 
     the continental United States comprising over 11 million 
     acres; and
       Whereas, almost 98 percent of this land is under either 
     management or control of various agencies of the federal 
     government; and
       Whereas, Department of Defense and Department of Energy 
     have withdrawn approximately 4 million acres from public 
     access and restricted this land to defense, nuclear and other 
     related government uses; and
       Whereas, almost 1000 nuclear devices were detonated on the 
     Nevada Test Site; and
       Whereas, the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendment 
     selected Yucca Mountain as the single site to be studied, and 
     in 2002 Congress approved the site for development of a 
     repository; and
       Whereas, Nuclear energy is needed to integrate with 
     renewable energy to significantly reduce CO2 emissions; and
       Whereas, the United States has over 80,000 tons of Spent 
     Nuclear Fuel and large quantities of High-Level Waste and 
     other radioactive waste that will require isolation in 
     geologic repositories; and
       Whereas, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act directs the 
     Department of Energy to pursue a licensing proceeding to 
     determine if Yucca Mountain is a safe site to house a 
     repository for Spent Fuel and High-Level nuclear waste; and
       Whereas, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is directed by 
     the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to adjudicate if Yucca Mountain 
     is safe to house a nuclear waste repository; and
       Whereas, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has never been 
     repealed and remains the law of the land; and
       Whereas, this waste is currently located in temporary 
     storage facilities at over 100 sites in 39 states; and
       Whereas, reprocessing of spent fuel and fast reactors have 
     the potential to reduce the amount of waste generated in the 
     future, there will always be large quantities of radioactive 
     waste for geologic disposal; and
       Whereas, Nye County and 8 other Nevada counties have passed 
     resolutions supporting the completion of the Yucca Mountain 
     licensing process by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
     determine if Yucca Mountain is safe; and
       Whereas, the Nye County Board of County Commissioners have 
     approved multiple resolutions and letters to the federal 
     government asking for negotiations with Nye County and the 
     State of Nevada to identify a package that includes 
     mitigation and benefits for Nevada residents; and
       Whereas, the federal government has made no serious efforts 
     to negotiate with State and local leaders or offer benefits 
     to residents of Nevada; and now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Nye County Board of Commissioners does 
     hereby continue to support the efforts to complete the Yucca 
     Mountain licensing process and resolve the nuclear waste 
     issue; and be it further
       Resolved, That as part of that effort, Nye County supports 
     the use of innovative technologies to minimize the amount of 
     nuclear waste. The research and investments for these 
     technologies should be done in Nevada creating jobs and 
     enhancing Nevada's Universities; and be it further
        Resolved, That pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 
     Nye County encourages the Trump Administration and Congress 
     to develop a benefit package that offers jobs, educational 
     benefits and with potential revenue for services to residents 
     and visitors of Nye County and the State of Nevada.
       Passed, Adopted, and Approved the 7th day of April, 2020.
       Ayes: Koenig, Strickland, Wichman, Cox, Blundo.
       Absent: None.
       Nayes: None.
       Nye County Board of County Commissioners: John Koenig, 
     Chairman.
       Attest: Kelly Sidman; Sandra L. Merlino, Nye County Clerk, 
     and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board.

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, what if we don't do this? Here is a chart. 
Here is Yucca Mountain, secure, in the desert, underneath a mountain, 
90 miles from Las Vegas.
  Right here in this Chamber, we are 44 miles from the nearest nuclear 
power plant. It just happens to be Calvert Cliffs. It is on the 
Chesapeake Bay, and so it is close.
  The State of Nevada will argue it will hurt our tourism. Well, let me 
tell you, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City have more tourists 
than Las Vegas and are closer to spent nuclear fuel than any other 
place.
  Again, it is a travesty that we spend $2.2 million every day for not 
complying with the law. This bill does not help us comply with the law. 
In fact, I would say this bill breaks the law, which is another example 
for the great American public to observe how dysfunctional we are in 
this day and age in the people's House. It saddens me.
  I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just to respond to my good friend, Mr. Cole, who I have 
great, great admiration for, but the gentleman said that more 
Democratic amendments were made in order. Well, let's kind of put that 
into context. More Democratic amendments were submitted, period. 
Actually, more than half of the amendments were Democratic.
  Let me put it this way: Twice as many Democratic amendments were 
offered as Republican amendments, and there was a big chunk of 
bipartisan amendments that were made in order.
  I don't like to compare our record to their record because the 
gentleman wasn't chair of the Rules Committee when the Republicans were 
in charge. But I just want to throw this little tidbit out there so 
that people can have this: We have made in order 25 percent more 
amendments this month than were made in order in all of 2018 under the 
Republican control of the House.
  Again, I know my friend wasn't the chair at the time, but I just 
wanted to point that out for the Record because I think it is a nice 
statistic.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. McAdams).
  Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of my amendments to H.R. 7617. My amendment 
would provide additional resources to the National Suicide Prevention 
Lifeline. The CDC reports that from 2001 to 2017, the Nation saw a 31 
percent increase in the suicide rate. It is now the second leading 
cause of death among Americans ages 15 to 24 and the leading cause of 
death for Utahns in this age group.
  The lifeline is a nationally accessible service that supports people 
in crisis and connects them to the help that they need. The lifeline 
has had great success, but it is also under strain as its funding has 
not kept pace with its caseload, particularly amid the pandemic's 
effects.
  I want my amendment to speak clearly to Americans in crisis: There is 
help; there is hope; and we are fighting for you.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of two amendments to 
protect children's safety and well-being.
  First, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has 
reported staggering increases in online child sex abuse material, 
commonly called child pornography. The Federal Internet Crimes Against 
Children Task Force Program supports task forces in every State to 
investigate such online exploitation and abuse of children and bring 
perpetrators to justice. My amendment enhances this grant program to 
support State and locally driven efforts to protect our children.
  Second, child advocacy centers are an incredible tool to support 
child survivors of abuse. These centers bring together specialized 
child welfare and law enforcement professionals to provide holistic 
services to children and to seek justice against abusers. COVID-19 has 
put many kids at risk, and my amendment provides additional resources 
for centers to meet this demand.
  I urge my colleagues to support these amendments to protect, heal, 
and give hope to Americans.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to immediately bring up S. 939, the CONFUCIUS 
Act, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent a month and a half 
ago.
  If enacted into law, S. 939 will address China's influence on 
American

[[Page H3895]]

colleges and universities through Confucius Institutes, which are 
cultural institutes directly or indirectly funded by the Chinese 
Government.
  Specifically, colleges and universities receiving Federal funds will 
be required to certify that the institution ensures that any contract 
or agreement between the institution and a Confucius Institute includes 
clear provisions that protect academic freedom at the institution, 
prohibits the application of any foreign law, and ensures the 
institution retains full managerial authority over the Confucius 
Institute.
  Mr. Speaker, in recent years, Confucius Institutes have become 
commonplace among higher-education campuses. While ostensibly high-
minded, these organizations are funded by the Government of the 
People's Republic of China and focus on a Beijing-approved view of 
Chinese history. They are noted for presenting Chinese Communist Party 
propaganda, ignoring human rights abuses in Tibet and among the 
Uighurs, and insisting that Taiwan belongs to mainland China.
  What is worse, Chinese influence on American campuses comes at a time 
in which China is engaged in ongoing efforts to steal American 
intellectual property and research, particularly in research 
institutions like those located on our higher education campuses.
  It is inarguable that Chinese espionage efforts like these pose a 
clear threat to national security. Passage of the CONFUCIUS Act would 
help close an open loophole on our college campuses currently being 
exploited by the People's Republic of China.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me remind my colleagues what the previous question vote is all 
about. It really isn't about substance. It is about turning control of 
the House over to my friends on the Republican side.
  As the chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China who 
is very, very concerned about these Confucius Institutes and about 
China's continuing escalation of activities within our country, I am 
happy to sit down with the gentleman and anyone else to try to bring 
legislation to the floor.
  We brought a lot of legislation to the floor to check China's growing 
power in the world. But this is really not about the Confucius 
Institute. This is about turning power over to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle.
  If they were to succeed, they could bring up whatever they want to 
within the rules of the House. And based on some of the statements in 
recent weeks by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle about 
some of their priorities, it could be some pretty, in my opinion, awful 
stuff.
  So, I would urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's plea here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support passage 
of the House's second package of appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2021 as a proud member of the Appropriations Committee and chair of an 
appropriations subcommittee.
  The defense division of the bill will safeguard our national security 
and give our troops a much-needed pay raise.
  I appreciate the inclusion of language to expedite replacement of 
PFAS firefighting foams and funding to study their health implications.
  The bill also supports research for metastatic cancer and encourages 
clinical trials that affect the demographics of our population.

                              {time}  1100

  The Commerce-Justice-Science division includes language from my PACE 
Act, which I introduced with Congressman Alcee Hastings. Our 
legislation seeks to disrupt the distrust and improve communication 
between police and communities of color.
  I am also proud that my colleague, Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence, and 
I secured $8 million for the Matthew Shepard hate crime investigation 
and prosecution grant program that was previously authorized and will 
now be funded for the first time.
  The bill addresses the growing problem of online child exploitation 
by carving out $40 million for Internet Crimes Against Children task 
forces.
  Funding is also included to research coral reef disease and harmful 
algal blooms, two significant problems for sea life in the State of 
Florida.
  I am particularly proud of the Energy and Water division, as a member 
of that subcommittee. The bill funds Everglades restoration projects at 
a historic $250 million, a major bipartisan achievement. I am also 
grateful for the inclusion of a fix to cut red tape that has delayed 
Everglades restoration projects and will allow them to begin. To 
protect our investment, the bill includes language that I wrote to 
block oil drilling in the Florida Everglades.
  I am encouraged that this bill provides increases for the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and ARPA-E.
  I am glad that the Financial Services division includes $500 million 
for election security grants for States to fight foreign intervention 
because, apparently, the President isn't interested in doing that.
  The report also includes language to improve postal security, which 
affected my office as well as the offices of Congresswoman Maxine 
Waters and numerous other leaders after a failed bombing attempt, an 
incident that raised serious postal security concerns.
  I am also pleased that the bill includes funding for pool safety 
grants that address swimming pool drownings, the number one cause of 
accidental death for young children in this country.
  Next, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education division 
includes vital funding for EARLY Act activities, an initiative I passed 
to promote breast cancer awareness for young and at-risk women. I was 
diagnosed with breast cancer at 41 years old, and I am proud to say 
that I am now approaching my 13th year as a survivor, and I appreciate 
the opportunity to make sure we can educate more young women and women 
at higher risk of their risk of breast cancer so they pay attention to 
their breast health.
  Additionally, the bill includes support for Holocaust survivors, who 
face countless obstacles as they age.
  Further, the bill protects unaccompanied migrant children by ensuring 
Members of Congress can visit child detention facilities with no prior 
notice--important accountability provisions. Language similar to my 
Families, Not Facilities Act was included to help unaccompanied migrant 
youth find sponsors.
  Finally, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development division 
provides investments in our transportation infrastructure and housing 
programs. I am glad to see $60 million for housing homeless veterans 
who have given so much for this country.
  I applaud the inclusion of provisions throughout the minibus to 
assert our authority as a coequal branch of government by prohibiting 
funds from being stolen by the President to pay for any border wall, 
which would be grossly irresponsible.
  I thank my fellow subcommittee chairs and, once again, thank 
Chairwoman Lowey as she retires from the Appropriations Committee, and 
their intrepid staff for the hard work that went into producing this 
minibus that takes care of the many needs people of all backgrounds 
face in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond quickly to the overall thrust of 
what is in these bills. There is no question, as my friend from Florida 
said, there are a lot of good things in these bills.
  My friend from Florida is actually a distinguished member of the 
Appropriations Committee, one whom I have had the opportunity to work 
with on many occasions. We don't object to those. But what is 
undeniable is there is roughly $40 billion more in spending than my 
friends agreed to only last year. Now, that is a budget cap imposed by 
law.

[[Page H3896]]

  Occasionally, Mr. Speaker, you have reason to do emergencies. We are 
living through an emergency right now. But if you need emergency 
spending, you negotiate that with the other side. There was no 
negotiation here with Republicans in the House. You certainly negotiate 
with the other Chamber, Mr. Speaker, particularly when it is controlled 
by the other party. There was no negotiation with the other Chamber. 
And you certainly negotiate with the President of the United States--no 
negotiation with him either. It is just a number made up out of whole 
cloth to keep my friends from having to make some tough budgetary 
decisions that they agreed to make and passed into law only last year.
  The second thing, as I mentioned, is these bills are chock-full of 
partisan riders. That is just the reality. Now my friends know none of 
these riders are going to remain in these bills or the bills will never 
pass the United States Senate and never be signed by a Republican 
President, so I suppose they were put in there for some internal 
reason.
  I hope they are not put in there to keep us from going past the 
September 30 deadline, which all these bills should be finished by, 
into later this year or, goodness knows, next year, when my friends 
might think they might have a more politically favorable environment. 
That is a disservice.
  This Congress ought to get its job done. It can't get its job done 
when one side decides to break its agreement, add almost a quarter of a 
trillion dollars in new spending, and add dozens of new policy 
provisions that they know are unacceptable.

  We can have those debates. They are good debates to have, but they 
don't belong in the middle of appropriations bills. I am not naive 
enough to say that both sides don't do this. We certainly did it when 
we were in the majority on some occasions. But when we did do it, it 
always slowed down the process and made agreement more difficult.
  Last year, 2019, the President, the Speaker, the minority leader, the 
Senate majority leader, and the Senate minority leader sat down and 
negotiated a deal. They said that these are going to be the spending 
limits, and we are not going to put any extraneous things in these 
bills.
  To my friends' credit, last year they actually did that. They stayed 
within the limit that we had set, and they did not put extraneous 
things in the bill. Consequently, all those bills passed; they all got 
enacted into law; we have had no government shutdowns; and we have had 
regular order.
  Why they decided this year to abandon the agreement that they 
actually committed to last year and launch spending initiatives and 
policy initiatives that they said they would not do is beyond me, but I 
do remind them it will make it much more difficult to come to 
agreement.
  So, given that, and given the fact that my friends have not kept the 
agreement that they agreed to last year, assented to last year, I am 
going to oppose the rule and urge rejection of the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time on my side. I would 
just say to my colleagues before I yield to the gentleman for his 
closing remarks that I think these are good bills that will help us not 
only get through this pandemic, but help set the stage for the economic 
recovery that we need.
  While we are all here talking, I hope my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are picking up the phone and calling their Senate 
counterparts and calling the White House and urging them to get serious 
about a coronavirus relief package that we desperately need.
  Schools in some districts are about to open up, and there is no 
Federal aid to help with what they may need to keep our children and 
our teachers safe. There is no money going to our cities and towns that 
are financially strapped because of our economy having shut down, no 
money to protect people so we can have safe elections, nothing--not 
anything--to help the millions of people in this country who are 
hungry.
  The Senate proposal, which I am not even sure it is a proposal 
anymore, has no money in it for SNAP. The most vulnerable people in 
this country get nothing when it comes to putting food on the table. 
They have reduced unemployment benefits, and then they sneak in money 
for an FBI building and money for defense contractors while they 
shortchange everybody else.
  We are in a healthcare crisis, we are in an economic crisis, and we 
need to respond. These appropriations bills, again, are a way to help 
us get back on our feet; but, in the immediate term, we need to get the 
Senate to get serious and respond, as the House did over 2 months ago, 
and extend a lifeline to the American people.
  This is serious. Mr. Speaker, I don't care whether you are a Democrat 
or a Republican. I hear from constituents of all political persuasions 
who are begging us to do something to help teachers and 
superintendents.
  Where is the help? Mayors, town managers, and city managers are 
asking: Where is the help?
  The House acted over 2 months ago--nothing from the Senate. So I 
think these appropriations bills are good, but we need to get something 
else done even before these become enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by telling my good friend that I have 
many of the same concerns he does about the coronavirus crisis and the 
need to act on another bill.
  That is not what is before us today, but I look forward to when that 
time comes and we have a negotiated product to working with my friend 
and seeing if we can find the necessary support to make sure that is 
enacted into law. Indeed, the Senate is involved in doing that right 
now.
  What is before us today is the work of the Appropriations Committee 
of the House of Representatives, not coronavirus legislation per se, 
although there are certainly elements in this bill that deal with that.
  Let me again reiterate what I said just a few minutes ago: There are 
a lot of good things in these appropriations bills. Appropriators work 
hard and quite a few often work together. We have an excellent chairman 
and an excellent ranking member, and so we cooperate. So there are many 
good things in these bills. But what makes them fundamentally 
unacceptable is, first, a decision to insert almost a quarter of a 
trillion dollars of emergency spending that violates the budget 
agreement that my friends signed only last year.
  Mr. Speaker, if you need an emergency measure--that happens--then you 
sit down and negotiate with the other side about what the amount is and 
what the nature of the response is. There was no effort to negotiate 
with Republicans on this emergency spending--not in the House, not with 
the Republican-dominated United States Senate, and not with the 
Republican President. So these are just numbers willy-nilly sort of 
thrown in there, and they are not going anywhere. In that sense, we 
have wasted a lot of time.
  Second, my friends agreed, also, last year to no riders, no policy 
provisions in the bills. We will just have straight government funding 
bills. Last year, they did that. They kept that agreement last year. 
They kept to the top line numbers, and they kept to their agreements in 
terms of policy. We passed all 12 bills in a bipartisan manner. The 
President signed them, and we have enjoyed the benefit of that this 
year. We have had no government shutdown and we have had no crises. The 
work was done in a timely fashion.

  Why my friends abandoned a formula and an agreement that worked last 
year to do this is beyond me. Frankly, it smacks a little bit of 
election-year politics; but, regardless, the purpose is to fund the 
government and to keep the government working for all of our citizens, 
providing basic services.
  These bills won't do that because they violated an agreement last 
year and they contain things that my friends recognized a year ago 
that, if we do that, then we are not going to get to any agreement on 
spending. The same thing is true today. The political constellation 
hasn't changed. It won't change for the balance of this fiscal year, 
and it won't change for the balance of the calendar year.
  If we were serious about legislating, we would write real bills that 
adhere to the agreements that both sides make, not add additional 
hundreds of billions of dollars of spending and add additional policy 
provisions that we know

[[Page H3897]]

the other side will not accept. Unfortunately, that is what is being 
done here.
  So I regret that. I hope my friends at some point will decide to come 
back and bargain. I suspect they will. They usually do. But we are 
wasting precious time now. We could have completed all these bills.
  Frankly, I will chastise the Senate here, too, because they are not 
moving very fast on the basic necessity of these bills. They have a 
tougher process. They can't just get a majority and ram things through 
the way my friends have the ability to do when they are in the majority 
and we have the ability to do when we are in the majority. It is a 
little bit different in the Senate of the United States. I recognize 
that.
  But we should make a contribution. We should have stuck to our 
agreement. We need emergency spending, which I think we do. That should 
come outside the confines of this legislation in standalone, emergency 
legislation agreed to by both sides negotiating in good faith. We have 
done that four times this year already. We are pretty good at it. If we 
would do it again for a fifth--and they are trying to do it now in the 
Senate--then I think we could deal with those other items that are in 
these bills that, quite frankly, belong in a standalone supplemental 
dealing with coronavirus.
  So, with that, I want to thank my friend for the time, and I want to 
thank him for the debate. As always, I look forward to working with 
him; but, for the moment, I urge the rejection of the rule and urge the 
rejection of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the Rules Committee staff and 
members for all of their incredible work during the last few weeks. We 
have processed thousands of amendments. We have had hours and hours and 
hours of hearings. We have listened to countless Members testify, and 
we were able to get through it all.
  But, again, I want people to appreciate especially the work of the 
staff. I say that in a bipartisan way that the Democratic staff and the 
Republican staff of the Rules Committee worked incredibly hard. I don't 
think most people even know it, but they ought to know it because this 
is a lot of work.
  I say to the gentleman from Oklahoma who is my friend, we don't 
always agree on everything, but I am very fortunate to have him as a 
ranking member because I think he respects this institution and he 
fights very hard for his beliefs. I fight hard for my beliefs. But even 
when we disagree, it is not in a personal way. We can disagree without 
being disagreeable, and I appreciate him for that, and my other 
colleagues as well.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, this rule is about moving forward to consider a measure 
to get annual and emergency funding moving to help put people back to 
work, to reinvigorate our public health system, to rebuild our aging 
roads and bridges, and to put an important check on this 
administration. This rule also is about whether we should debate 
hundreds and hundreds of amendments from Democrats and Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately about whether we fulfill one of our 
most fundamental responsibilities. I urge all of my colleagues to come 
together in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Let's 
ensure this Congress continues to provide the leadership the American 
people are demanding.
  The material previously preferred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 1067

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (S. 939) to establish limitations regarding Confucius 
     Institutes, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to commit.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of S. 939.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________