tv U.S. House Debates Minibus Spending Bill CSPAN July 26, 2017 3:59pm-6:00pm EDT
many members expressed concerns about medical care issues and were able to fully fund the budget request for mental health services at $8.4 billion. suicide prevention outreach at $186 million. homeless veterans treatment services, housing and job training at $7.3 billion. opioid abuse prevention at $50 million. and we began that in the omnibus last year. the $50 million in opioid prevention. opioid abuse prevention. rural health initiatives, $250 million. caregivers' stipends at $604 million. repeat last year's bill language regarding improved standards for suicide prevention hotline. for disability claims processing, again, another issue very important to so many members in this body. particularly through our veterans who are seeking services from the v.a. or benefits. we provide $2.9 billion. which is $50 million over the
request. we need to be vigilant, to be sure that the claims backlog doesn't -- mr. chairman -- mr. frelinghuysen: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dent: this legislation also contains $65 million as requested as the v.a. switches gears and moves from modernizing its own aging electronic health record to acquiring a record d.o.d. is using. the bill continues to include language restricting the most -- restricting most of the funding until the v.a. meets milestones and certifies statutory requirements. our bill increases the request for v.a. research funding by $58 million to a total of $698 million, recognizing strong congressional interest in the v.a.'s research to combat devastating conditions like ptsd and brain and also traumatic brain injury. major construction. we continue oversight over those projects, holding back funding until a third party is brought. in closing i ask members to support this important piece of the legislation. it's very important to our
service members, our veteran and their families. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i'm delighted to yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, the democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentlelady from new york, the distinguished ranking member of the appropriations committee, for yielding and more importantly for her great leadership to advance the values of our country in the allocation of resources, and i always squad mire the work of mr. frelinghuysen, the depiss ting wished chairman as well. we may have a matter of disagreement here today, though. mr. speaker, all of us, members of congress, all elected official, people who serve in any office, take a solemn oath to support and defend the constitution. that is an oath to protect the
american people. democrats, indeed, all american, believe in a strong national defense. we believe in strong investments in our defense and in our brave men and women in uniform in particular. but far from strengthening our security, this -- the falsely inflated numbers in this spending bill will create uncertainty for our military and hollow out america's communities at home. we face serious threats in the world, we know that. those threats demand serious consideration in congress. we should be making serious decisions about our national security mission. what is our mission? what are the resources that we need? we don't want to spend more than we need but we don't want to spend less. and we should not be posturing in the defense bill with false numbers and no real answers about the mission of the -- that
these dollars would fund. we do not give certainty to our defense or competence to our troops when we legislate with phony numbers, when we refuse to make honest choices about our defense budget. instead of giving certainty to our heroes in uniform, this bill would breach the sequester spending limit by more than $70 billion. forcing a mandatory 13% cut to ll defense accounts. these phony numbers in this bill not only do violence to our defense budget, they starve the strength of america by ransacking our domestic investments. in order to be the strongest possible america, we must measure our strength not only in our military might but in the health, education, and well eing of the american people. and that's what the problem is.
we are stealing from the domestic budget with phony numbers to the defense budget which will be because of the sequester cut the defense account by 13% as we starve our domestic investment. besides the direct danger this bill proposes to our military, it is laden with poison pills. it would squander billions of taxpayer dollars on president trump's immoral, ineffective, and expensive border wall. the president said during the campaign , he said, i promised a wall. no you promised a wall that mexico would pay for. he said it would cost $4 billion to $6 billion. the fact is it could cost as much as $30 billion or $40 billion. and he wants a down payment for that wall in this bill. one poison pill. it also eliminates ar pa-e, the advanced energy research vital
to our energy independence, to our national security, to keep america, the innovation superpower of the 21st century. democrats will continue to demand real leadership to strengthen our national defense. . speaker, on this day, july 26, 1948, president harry truman signed the executive order desegregating the u.s. military. how great that was for america. how great it is for our country to benefit from the service of so many people who had been erving all along, but now with dignity and respect, which was justified. so how sad is it that on this same day the president of the united states, 69 years ago,
recognized the value of respecting our men and women in uniform, that the commander in chief, the president of the united states, fired 15,000 courageous men and women in uniform in a vile, hateful tweet. his actions regarding transgenders in the military were unworthy of their bravery and unworthy of the american people. let us be thank -- thankful for the blessings of all our men and women in uniform and our veterans who have served us and our military families to whom we owe so much. their courage, their service and leadership, their sacrifice is what truly makes us the land of the free and the home of the brave. and it insists that we be serious and real and evidence-based as we make decisions about how we invest in the security of our country. i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentlelady yields back this egentlelady from new york reserves this gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield to the legislative branch subcommittee on appropriations chair for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to speak in favor of the bill before us, paying particular attention to the legislative branch subcommittee. i want to thank my colleagues, chairman frelinghuysen and raking member lowey for their leadership and ranking member ryan who has been a gentleman and a scholar for working with e to develop to product, a representation of how we wan cork across the line to develop bipartisan legislation. our total for the legislative branch is $3.58 billion. we focused on better security and more accountability in a responsible manner.
first and foremost the house continues to lead by example in its frugal operations. mr. yoder: with this bill we'll be spending 12% below the 2010 levels, showing the american people fiscal discipline start here's in our house operations first. we also continue the policy of denying pay increases to members of congress for the eighth fiscal year in a row. this republican congress has tightened its belt since taking the majority and have never allowed a pay increase for members of congress and aren't allows one today, saving taxpayers over $68 million since 2011. in light of the recent shooting where republican members of congress were targeted for their beliefs and our colleague and majority whip steve scalise was seriously wounded, this bill takes a new focus on security related to congress and i want o recognize capitol police officers crystal griner and david bailey. the capitol police protect us, our staff and the visitors we
get here with bravery, putting their lives on the line. special agents griner around bailey put that devotion on displayer in world. their courage under fire safed the lives of countless members of congress, staff, and innocent by standers. steve scalise, zach and others on that field that day are alive today because of their actions. we as a congress owe it to the capitol police to ensure they have the necessary resources to meet their mission in an increasingly polarized climate. we have -- we believe we have propriately emphasized those meetings. we provide resources and make structural changes that will address security concerns here in the capitol and in our home
districts, including $29 million in new resources for capitol police, $5 million for the sergeant at arms, and support for house administrations authorization to increase $25,000 per m.r.a. account to address members' physical security when they're away from the capitol complex. we also invest in cybersecurity measures to protect attack obs our digital information. after hearings, briefings and tour, we have included $581 million in total for the architect of the capitol. we recognize the challenge of preserving our infrastructure in the current fiscal climate. we included funding to renovate house office buildings and other to revitalize in future years. we provided $48468 million for the library of congress, with much funding going to i.t. improvements librarywide.
we provided $4.5 billion for c.b.o. we have our differences and opinions on c.b.o. estimates and how it arrives in those conclusions and in some cases they are wrong. but it serves an important purpose and needs resources to do its job. we also include funding for the government accountability office to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. we sought thoughtful feedback from member os of the committee and the body. they are measures we can be proud of. it includes openness and transparency and increasing efficiencies by publishing nonconfidential reports online, expanded the wounded warrior project to help members hire veterans, increasing slots by 57%. in all this bill represents a frugal approach to funding the base exoperations of congress, we do so in a fiscally
responsible manner, keeping expenses low and prohibiting pay increases in congress. i'd like to thank ranking member yan and his staff, ann and others, and my staff, and to all the members of the committee for their work and participation in the process this year. i urge this body to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the chair: the whip is ecognized. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, madam ranking member, for yielding. mr. chairman, members of the house. i served actively on the appropriations committee for 23 years. i'm still a member on leave.
never in the 36 years that i've been here have i seen an omnibus appropriation bill or a mini bus appropriation bill brought to the floor before the august break. regular order is to bring each bill to the floor, debate each bill on its merit, have the opportunity to offer amendments, and debate the her pretties of the amendments and of that particular bill. however, the majority party has not done its job. i do not hold accountable the members of the appropriations committee. i want to make that clear. -- clear. but for whatever reasons, regular order has not been followed. so each member of the congress of the united states is confronted with either voting for all of the bill with
, ponent parts, alleged bill defense bill, that they may not like. but if they vote no they will be accused of being against the security of the united states. that, my friends is baloney. in his pledge to america, or in their pledge to america, the republicans said, and i quote, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time. this belies that representation. the sponsors of this mini bus package, mr. speaker, claim it will make america more secure. i reject that argument. senior military leaders have said that the greatest long-term threat to our national security is the growing national debt and the impact of interest payments on the debt as they crowd out our ability to invest in defense
and domestic priorities. it is incumbent upon us, mr. speaker, to work together to pass a fiscally responsible budget. agreement that lifts the sequester caps in a way consistent with the principle of parity between defense and nondefense spending. ladies and gentlemen of this house, we were supposed to pass . budget on or before april 15 it is now july 26. we have passed no budget. there is no plan for overall spending. this, therefore, is a pig and a poke and nobody on this house floor or in this country knows the ramifications about the passage of this bill on the eight domestic spending bills hat remain untended.
i thank the gentlelady two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: it's incumbent upon us, mr. speaker, to work together to pass a fiscally responsible budget agreement that lifts the sequester caps. we cannot simply skip to appropriations without determining what our budget priorities are first. it is as critical for our national defense as it is for our ability to support economic growth. moreover this is the earliest, as i have said before, that i can ever remember that the house considered either and omnibus or minibus appropriation bill. it's an acknowledgment by the house majority that the house will not be able to move these bills through under regular order given republicans' internal divisions over spending bills. so instead of working with democrats to craft individual appropriation bills that can pass the house, they're
resorting to legislative tactics to push them through on partisan votes. i will remind my friends across the aisle that they have been unable to enact a single funding bill in the past seven years without ultimately appealing to democratic votes. so i urge my colleagues to eject this minibus package and make it clear that we first ought to negotiate a budget agreement that provides certainty and clarity to the entire federal government, not just a handful of agencies. and we ought to do it through an open and transparent process with members permitted to offer amendments that could shape a budget and appropriation bills truly reflective of the nation's priority as a whole. i urge my colleagues to vote no so that we can get on with an appropriation process that is in the regular order, that makes common sense, that is
transparent and that will give the american public the best product that we can produce, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from california, the chairman of the interior subcommittee on appropriations for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 3219, the make america secure appropriations act. i would like to commend chairman frelinghuysen for his tireless work to report all 12 appropriations out. he deserves a great deal of credit of getting us to this point today. the four bills included in h.r. 219 reflect hours of hearings, member input, bipartisan cooperation. mr. calvert: i would like to express my thanks to the chairs of the military construction, energy and water, veterans' affairs and the leg branches
subcommittee. the energy and water division provides robust funding for water infrastructure, over $67 million to create needed water storage in the west. i want to thank chairman simpson and his staff for their hard work. as a member of the defense subcommittee appropriations i would like to thank kay granger for her unwavering support for our men and women in uniform. i'd also like to -- also would be remiss if i did not mention the professional staff at the subcommittee who dedicated countless hours to craft a bill that meets the needs of the department of defense and reflects the will of congress. our greatest responsibility as members of congress is to provide for the resources necessary to the men and women of our armed forces. this bill includes $584.2 in base defense funding and $73.9 billion for overseas contingency operations it provides for a 2.4% military pay raise and additional
funding to create strength. it has money for shipbuilding, combat vehicles and more. it invests in our greatest assets, the men and women in uniform, to get the best equipment and training. we are at a crossroads. right now our military is at high tempo to create the missions of the united states. however, in order to meet the next challenge, whatever that may be, we must invest now. we know the situation we're in. national security advisor mcmaster has stated that the u.s. is outranged and outgunned by potential adversaries. out of 58 bri gait combat teams, the -- brigade combat teams, we only have three ready. while capability is important, the vast oceans of the world desperately needs our presence. only seven out of 10 aircraft of the air force are ready to fly. the average age of the aircraft across the service is 27 years.
airmen are flying the same planes as their grandfathers. only 43% of the marine corps total aircraft inventory is considerable flyable. our marines deserve better. today we have a chance to correct the course we have been on for the last eight years. u.s. constitution creates a government of the people to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense. this bill fulfills the promise enshrined in our constitution to secure the blessing of our liberty and provide for the defense of our nation. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i'm delighted to yield six minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz, the ranking member of the subcommittee on military construction and veterans' affairs. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for six minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the distinguish ranking
member for yielding. i would like to thank chairman frelinghuysen and chairman dent for their hard work as well. as we all know, the military construction and veterans' affairs and related agencies bill has a strong reputation for bipartisanship. chairman dent set a cooperative tone and was inclusive throughout this process. he's worked tirelessly to address many members' concerns and i joined him in that effort as well as critical issues impacting our veterans and active and reserve service members. the military construction portion of this minibus provides adequate funding for both the active and reserve components. in addition, the bill funds the nato security investment program at the frment y. 2017 level, sending -- f.y. 2017 level, sending a strong message to our allies that we stand with them as we face evolving international threats. for the department of veterans affairs, this bill provides $3.9 billion, which is a 3.5% ncrease over 2015 -- over f.y.
2017. and it will address breast cancer awareness and prevention and provides almost $700 million for medical research which will fund essential efforts to address t.b.i. and ptsd, develop state-of-the-art pros theyics, care for those of sexual military trauma and those suffering from mental illness. the bill also continues to fund important programs to combat veteran homelessness, provide our veterans with effective and timely health care and improve the veteran benefits application and appeals process. and i'm also extremely grateful for chairman dent's support for in vitro fertilization and coverage for assisted reproductive technology for veterans who sustained a service-connected injury that impacts their fertility. this issue is both very important to me and to so many service members. all veterans deserve to be able to start families. moreover, providing access to i.v.f. is consistent with the v.a.'s goal to support veterans and improve their quality of
life. on a personal note, this bill will also address the issue of breast cancer awareness and prevention. this past spring our subcommittee visited the washington v.a. medical center. we learned that the v.a. was relying on the controversial uspf guidance for madamography for making decisions. we barred providers from making these decisions base on these guidelines through 2018. however the moratorium did not apply to the v.a., and so women in their 40's who were veterans could be denied coverage for madamograms. its credit, the v.a. -- mamograms. to its credit, language to hold the v.a. to this better standard. as i stated in my testimony before the rules committee, mr. speaker, it's my sincere belief if the milcon-va was being considered as a stand-alone as is tradition under an open rule, it would receive strong
bipartisan support. but unfortunately that's not what we're doing here today. instead of following regular order, we instead are taking up four bills at once and adding funds to begin construction on president trump's irresponsible border wall that he promised mexico would pay for and now taxpayers are being stuck with the bill. this fiscally and morally irresponsible expenditure leaves the nondefense appropriations bills grossly underfunded. furthermore, contrary to popular belief, this bill isn't even great for defense. all this talk about making sure that we provide adequate resources for our defense and our national security ignores the fact that the budget control act provides additional funds that would ultimately be sequestered without a cap adjustment. this minibus would breach this cap by more than $72 billion, sulting in a mandatory 13.2% sequester of all defense accounts, including the military construction title.
and by the way, i said this repeatedly each time i have spoken on this legislation and never once did anyone in the majority counter what i'm suggesting. that is deeply troubling. so even if this bill is signed into law, which it will not be, d.o.d. would not receive $1 of this increase. secretary mattis testified sequestration and the continued use of continuing resolutions would result in a steady erosion of military readiness. that is the only outcome this bill guarantees. by taking up this minibus today we are setting ourselves up for failure and we are setting ourselves up for an early fall with no real progress to be made on the f.y. 2018 appropriations bills. mr. speaker, we continue to govern in this fashion. i believe it is time we stop listening to the most extreme voices and get past these unrealistic beliefs that we can cut our way to prosperity. we cannot. if this failed philosophy persists, our work will only get more difficult. it is clear that passing any
appropriations bill that will be signed into law will require a bipartisan majority of both houses. as a result of this irresponsible posture, i will sadly be voting against the minibus and look forward to working towards an appropriations product that both parties can work on together in true bipartisan tradition. and mr. speaker, i'd lastly before i close like to thank our staff in the milcon-va bill on both the majority and the minority side. maureen, sarah, sue, shawn, tracy with the majority and matt washington, roselyn and jonathan with the minority. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. palazzo: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman frelinghuysen. i rise in strong support of the make america secure
appropriations act. as a member of the appropriations committee, i have witnessed firsthand the hard work that chairman frelinghuysen and his subcommittee chairman have put into crafting this bill. they all should be congratulated for their work on this legislation and so should their staffs. i firmly believe that the number one constitutional responsibility of congress is to provide for the common defense of this nation against all enemies both domestic and foreign. that commitment by increasing defense funding and restoring the cuts and budget shortfalls that threaten our military readiness and our ability to project force around the globe is honored here today. our bill also honors those who serve our country in the armed forces by giving them a much-deserved 2.4% pay raise and making critical investments in equipment and training that help them perform the missions we give them and most importantly help them return home safely to their loved ones and their families and communities. this includes 11 navy ships
including two destroyers for our navy and a new l.h.a. for our marines and i'm proud to say that some of these ships will be built in my district by the greatest shipbuilders on earth. the bill also honors the service of our veterans. our commitment doesn't stop when our men and women in uniform stops serving. we must continue to support them after they leave service and this bill does just that. funding mental health care, care for our homeless veterans and other national priorities. in addition, this bill makes critical investments in our nation's border security, including fully funding the president's request for physical barrier construction along our southern border. the president has promised this funding. the american people want this funding, and today the house is making good on that promise. after all, border security is national security. mr. speaker, this is a solid bill. it honors our commitment to keep americans safe and fulfills our obligation to all
those who serve this great country. i urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield six minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. visclosky, the ranking member of the subcommittee on defense. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for six minutes. mr. visclosky: i ask unanimous coffin sent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. vis clsky texas i thank the gentlelady for yielding to me. i want to thank chairwoman granger, this is her first time reading -- leading the defense appropriations bill on the floor. she's done so under difficult circumstances with a steadfast commitment to maintaining the tradition of cooperative bipartisanship on the subcommittee, maintaining transparency and taking a thoughtful approach to solving problems. also, i would like to express my
immense gratitude to chairman frelinghuysen, ranking member lowey and members of the subcommittee and our exceptional staff for all their hard work. we have a duty to provide predictable and timely appropriations to the department of defense and the rest of federal government. this is a consistent request by our senior defense leaders. however, the house bills exceed the cap of fiscal year 2018 defense spending established under the budget control act of 2011 by $72.5 billion. if enacted as written and the budget control caps remain in place, the department of defense would face a sequestration of roughly 13%. the department has still not recovered from the rash of problems caused the last time it was forced to deal with sequestration in 2013. in the second of that -- in the second half of that fiscal year
the department saverpblged its maintenance and other accounts to protect military personnel accounts this resulted in the navy idling an aircraft carrier at a pier in norfolking the army canceling train rogueations and the air force reducing flight times for combat aircraft and widespread civilian fur -- civilian furloughs. we cannot allow that to happen again in fiscal year 2018. we have avoided sequestration in the last four fiscal years by adjusting the budget caps for both defense and nondefense ppropriations. those modest adjustment, done in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion, provided needed funding for our military but also for our country's economic and physical infrastructure, scientific research, and veterans care. besides my frustration with the process, i have concerns about the significant increase in
funding that this bill will provide to the department. $60 billion more than last year and $29 billion more than than requested by the administration. i support providing additional funds to the department. as i believe we are -- yet i believe -- as i believe we are asking too much our -- of our brave soldiers and their families. but the world is also an unsettled place and not trending toward stability. but that being said the department -- i believe dethpt will have great difficulty spending so much additional dollars in a timely and efficient matter. vacancies continue in important leadership positions. hiring restrictions on civilian employees and a handful of ongoing strategic reviews will all slow the decision making process. it is also unlikely that congress will complete its work in a timely manner by october 1
and that any dollars provided will have to be spent in a compressed time period. additionally, i am not convinced that the administration evaluates dollars being spent on the military with the same criteria as it does with the rest of the federal government. in the office of management and budget's major savings and reform document for fiscal year 2018, it was a page turner. for the 150 proposals to allegedly cey billions in discretionary programs, there in nly one recommendation 150, one, for the department of defense with a potential to save nly $2 billion by now and 027. with a budget of roughly $600 billion a year, representing nearly half of the discretionary spending, it is beyond the pale that o.m.b. could only come up with a single savings point for
the department of defense. and one final point because i'm highly disappointed that the republican leadership has watered down language that was added during committee markup regarding the authorization of the use of -- use of military force. representative barbara lee's language would have establish and imminently reasonable approach to updating 2001 legislation and authorization. congress must stop hiding from the debate and carry out its constitutional responsibilities to support our troops in uniform and the civilian support staff that helps them out. in closing, i would like again simply to reiterate my thank you to the members of our subcommittee and committee and for our sterling staff who have done a superb job under the most difficult and -- under the most difficult circumstances i could imagine.
with that, i yield become my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to recognize a colleague from new jersey, congressman lance, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank chairman frelinghuysen for yielding to me and thank him for his tremendous leadership as chairman of the appropriations committee. new jersey and indeed the entire nation are fortunate to have mr. frelinghuysen as chairman of this critical committee. under the chairman's leadership, all spending bills have advanced out of the committee and now today we consider a package that affirms one of congress east most important responsibilities, to provide for the common defense. included in this legislative package is an important measure that opens reports by the congressional research service and opens those reports to the public. i have been involved in this issue for some time and i thank chairman frelinghuysen and
subcommittee chairman yoder for their support of this measure. american taxpayers spend more than $100 million a year supporting the work of the congressional research service. their findings, reports andage cease should be public information. it is good public policy to allow educators, students members of the news media and everyday citizens across the nation to have access to c.r.s.'s nonpartisan taxpayer funded reports. by providing public access to c.r.s. reports we can elevate our national discourse and make it easier for citizens to cut through the misinformation that's too often involved in the national debate. citizens should have full access to the same neutral, unbiased information that many of us in congress used to help us make important decisions. it is governed by requirements for accuracy, objectivity and nonpartisanship, those values sought by engaged constituents. i again commend the chairman for
including this measure in the legislative branch title. this is one of many victories for taxpayers in this important bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i am to yield yield -- three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro, the ranking member on the subcommittee of h.h.s. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to this bill. what does it do? it would force the office of management and budget to issue an across-the-board budget cut for defense spending come january. why? because the house appropriations bill exceed the defense budget
spending cap. by more than $72 billion. and i might add that both democrats and republicans voted for the spending caps for defense spending and for nondefense spending. so the defense funding in the bill, their numbers are in essence fake. these are fake numbers. republicans have no plan to raise both our need to support our national security and military readiness and our need to support hardworking middle class families who are struggling to get by. so if these bills are enacted, e only way to avoid this across-the-board defense spending cut is if we had another budget deal to revise those bipartisan budget -- the burn budget control act which
established spending caps for defense spending and for nondefense spending. now add to that, since military pay is usually exempt from budget cuts, if this bill and the other house appropriations bills are signed into law, the office of management and budget, law, by law, would be required to cut defense spending by more than 13% or $72 billion. we would need a new budget agreement to increase both defense spending and nondefense spending to meet the needs of our country. my friends, this is not going to happen. hardly likely. the biggest economic challenge of our time is that too many people are in jobs that do not
pay them enough to live on. we must invest in programs that provide opportunities for hardworking americans to be able to improve themselves and for our economy to grow. we need a country that works for the middle class and for the vulnerable, not just the wealthy and those with the most lobbyists. this budget process is irresponsible and our military and our hardworking families will all be shortchanged. this is unacceptable. congress needs to negotiate another budget deal that increases both defense and the nondefense spending caps. the spending levels in the defense bill are impossible to achieve unless there is a new budget deal and it's reached. so again, the numbers are fake. if you vote yes on this, you are voting for a pig in a poke. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves.
the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield to mr. simpson for a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: at this time i yield to my colleague from alaska, mr. young, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i want to thank chairman simpson and chairman frelinghuysen for their work on this. i want to ask about the denali commission in alaska. my amendment would have restored commission to their funding levels and restore the funding level os they have appalachian regional commission and the northern border regional commission. the denali commission, mr. simpson, started in 1998 with senator stevens. it's an independent federal agency designed to provide critical utilities,
infrastructure and economic support throughout alaska. ith the creation of the denali commission, congress acknowledged the need for increased interagency operations this edenali commission operates in the northeast geographically diverse and challenging areas in the country, twice the size of texas. this would include both the delta regional authority and the appalachia commission. the commission has improved the living conditions in areas of alaska. i know you've done the best you can and i cannot believe all the programs the denali provides for the state of alaska and my constituents and i would appreciate if you would look at a future time to fund them at the level they were in 1917. so mr. -- excuse me, 2017. i apologize for that. mr. simpson i do urge you as the chairman to understand how important the denali commission is to alaska. mr. simpson: i appreciate the --
my colleague's statement on the denali commission, the house mark this year supports the denali commission in its efforts rather than the administration's request to terminate the agency. the commission would have depried many communities of many infrastructure projects. in a time of economic change they can scarely afford to lose the private investments leveraged by the commission annually. i'll be happy to work with my colleague to ensure the commission is provided sufficient fund to support their efforts in his state. mr. young: again, chairman simpson, i appreciate the fact you just mentioned, it was eliminated by the administration you did restore some of the money, i'm just requesting if you get any more money in this commission, we look forward to the denali commission, the work it's done is well rewarded. i thank you both you and the chairman for the work you have done establishing the denali commission in past years. mr. simpson: i look forward to
working with you and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i am delighted to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman, the distinguished vice chair of the subcommittee from washington, mr. kilmer. the chair: the gentleman from washington state is recognized. mr. kilmer: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman from new jersey and our ranking member. i have great respect for both of them. mr. chair, the most responsibility we have is to keep our nation and our citizens safe. in order to fulfill that responsibility, we have a commitment to those who serve that they will have the training and equipment and support that they need to be the most capable fighting force the world has ever seen. we also have a commitment to the men and women who serve that we will have their back, not only when they're on duty but when they come home. this congress should support a pay raise for our nation's
troops. this congress should support a cutting edge naval fleet. this congress should make sure that we can say that every veteran will get the care that he or she has earned, but this congress should also be opposed to a bill that puts the department of defense right in the path of the across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration. now, i admit, i have not heard about sequestration until i first ran for this job. it's a latin word for stupid because when you face our military leaders, even in my district, they have implored this congress to do away with the bind that sequestration threatens to put them in. they think this is a bad idea, but what we're doing this week ignores the advice of our top commanders and our military experts. instead, it would put the department of defense on a collision course with sequestration. that would mean harmful cuts, across the board cuts to our
military. the failure of this congress to pass a legitimate budget is a disservice to our armed forces and to every man and woman who serves in it. we should be giving those in uniform certainty that their paychecks will arrive on time, that their gear will be the best, that they'll get the training that they need, that cuts won't hurt their readiness. let's vote down this bill and do better. pass a responsible bill. listen, a majority of the members in this chamber are willing to support a plan that not only funds our military but also makes sure we don't approach yet another government shutdown. that's what the american people sent us here to do, mr. chair. let's listen to their voices, and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to recognize the distinguish chairman of the science, space and technology committee, lamar alexander of texas, four
minutes. mr. smith: i am very pleased to support h.r. 3219, the make america secure appropriations act of 2018, especially because it includes h.r. 3266, which provides appropriations for the energy programs within the science committee's jurisdiction. chairman simpson, who is on the floor behind me, has worked closely with us on the science committee to include responsible, pro-science funding levels for the department of energy. chairman simpson, your leadership and cooperation have been exceptional and are much appreciated. thank you for your leadership in passing this legislation that sets america on a path to remain the world's leader in innovation. the appropriations included in this legislation are consistent with the america competes re-authorization act which passed the house last congress. this bill also funds programs
authorized in h.r. 589, the d.o.e. research and innovation act, which passed this year and which was the project over three years in the science committee which set clear science priorities for the department of energy. american industry relies on federal support for basic research to produce the scientific breakthroughs that fuel technological innovation, new industries, economic growth and good jobs. around the country, scientists at our national labs and universities are conducting groundbreaking basic science research that provides the foundation for next generation technology in energy, medicine and manufacturing. this legislation provides strong support for the department of energy's office of science at $5.4 billion for fiscal year 2018. the office of science will get increased funding for research in basic energy sciences, high-performance computing, nuclear physics, high-energy
physics and fusion energy. the strong support for the office of science in the appropriations bill will prioritize the basic research programs that are the core mission of the department and the national labs and lead to scientific discoveries that can provide benefits across the economy. this legislation also includes responsible funding for d.o.e.'s applied programs, prioritizing early stage research in electricity, energy efficiency, renewables, follil and nuclear. an example of such -- fossil and nuclear. an example is nuclear energy where the bill's funding support the priorities outlined in the nuclear energy capabilities act, which passed the house as part of h.r. 589. that legislation, sponsored by energy subcommittee chairman randy weber of texas, combines the strengths of the national labs, universities and the private sector to develop advanced nuclear technology. this technology is our best
opportunity to provide reliable and emission-free electricity. this will begin design and construction of the reactor authorized -- mr. frelinghuysen: i'd like to yield the gentleman another minute. and let me say we're listening to congressman lamar smith, for the record, very distinguished chairman. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i thank the chairman for yielding me an additional minute. it begins design and construction for the research reactor authorized in h.r. 589, which will provide access to the fast neutrons necessary to enable the next generation of nuclear energy technology. as we shape the future of the department of energy, our priority must be basic and early stage research that only the federal government has the incentives and resources to support and pursue. this will empower private sector innovators to develop and demonstrate resulting new capabilities that will attract
the capital investments needed to take energy technology to the marketplace, creating jobs and expanding our economy. mr. chairman, i strongly encourage my colleagues to support this pro-science bill, pro-energy appropriations bill and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the ranking member for yielding. i also want to thank the appropriation chair from new jersey and the staff and also the ranking young lady from new york and the staff for being a bipartisan committee. the appropriations committee has been bipartisan. while this bill before us is a step toward getting the job done of passing the appropriation bill before the end of the fiscal year, we know this is only the first step.
we still need a lot more work to do. and i regret that rule that we will take up tomorrow will likely include $1.6 billion for a wall. we who live on the border, we understand and we believe that border security, we believe in border security. border security that's strong, sensible, common sense and effective for the border. the wall is a 14th century solution to a 21st century challenge that we have. the border wall is not the right solution for border security. why? number one, private property rights. we believe in private property rights. in fact, there are some people that for generations that have owned land along the border. i have several veterans that own land. in fact, there's one veteran in particular that buried his father. his father who served in world war ii, and his family right along the river bank. so if you put a wall, what is he going to do? once you put the wall, how is
he going to go visit the cemetery, the family's cemetery along the border? what about cattle, livestock? how are they going to have access to water along the river? number two, we have natural barriers along the texas border. we have the rivers. you can see how the river snakes around. and what about the cliffs? are you going to put a wall on top of this cliff? it just doesn't make sense. number three, what about taxpayers' dollars? mexico is not going to pay for this wall. we know that the american taxpayer is going to pay for this. $1.6 billion for 74 miles out of the 1,954 miles that we have. that's $21.2 million per mile for this wall. compared to $1 million of technology we wanted to put technology cameras, sensors for border security. number four -- oh, by the way,
so $1.6 billion, all i need is $100, buy myself a good ladder and we'll take care of that wall. so, again, we got to be smart about border security. number four, environmental concerns. wildlife refuge that we have concerns. at about the 40% of the 11 million people that we have here that did visa overstays? so you can put the biggest wall but people are going to fly or drive across the bridge or get a boat into houston and just stay over the time. what about a cap analysis so we know what are the real needs that we have? that's number six. what about number seven? mexico is an ally. it's not an enemy. every day we have $1.3 billion of trade with our friends to the south. every day $1.3 billion. that's over $1 million of trade every single minute. six million american jobs that
we have because of the trade that we have with our friends to the south. we need strong, commonsense border security. and i know this because i live at the border. i drink the water. i breathe the air. i understand this very well. the border area is very safe. use f.b.i. stats, the murder rate in my hometown of laredo is three murders per 100,000. here in washington, d.c., it's 24.5 murders per 100,000. so if you want to talk about dangerous, when i live at the border, to fly over washington, this is the most thing about my job. so the wall is a 14th century to a 21st century problem. i ask you to vote no on the border wall. again, i want to thank the appropriations committee for being very bipartisan. this is only the first step. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to recognize a very distinguished representative from texas, mr. randy weber, for two minutes.
the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. weber: i thank the chairman. i rise today in support of the make america secure appropriations act of 2018. i'm particularly pleased to support language from h.r. 3266, which provides appropriations for energy programs within the science committee's jurisdiction. for years the energy subcommittee, which i chair, has listened to experts and gathered data to determine appropriate priorities for the d.o.e. the bill brought before the house floor reflects the findings of the committee. it funds basic and early stage research and it does so all the while reducing spending. importantly, this bill includes specific appropriations for -- authorizations for programs authorized in my bill, the nuclear energy innovation capabilities act, which establishes a clear timeline and parameters for d.o.e. to complete a research reactor. this type of research requires access to fast neutrons currently only available in russia. to completion of our own
research reactor is crucial, mr. speaker, in ensuring materials and nuclear fuels are indeed takes place in these united states of america. the verse tile neutron source authorized in my legislation will provide the united states with this vital capability. i want to thank chairman frelinghuysen for specifically including $32 million in funding and chairman simpson to begin the design of vital research, infrastructure in this appropriations bill. america must maintain our nuclear capabilities and continue to develop cutting edge technology here at home. this bill provides direction and robust funding for early stage nuclear energy research. without it we will fall behind. it is vital we ensure this important research and development is fully funded. we cannot afford to miss the economic opportunities provided by next generation nuclear technology. i encourage my colleagues to support in pro-science, fiscally responsible
legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank our ranking member for yielding to me. i rise in opposition to funding for president trump's border wall. i visit the border of texas and mexico many times. communities all along and beyond the boreder in my home state of texas are opposed to this border wall. texas has deep and historic ties with our neighbor to the south, mexico. the people of texas and mexico share a pride, a clear majority of our communities believe that the close ties between texas and mexico, culture, economic, linguistic benefit both texas and mexico. the destruction of the quote, this big, fat, beautiful wall, to quote president trump, along a 2,000-mile long u.s.-mexico
border would not only be unnecessary but harmful to our natural and wildlife habitats and become a symbol of spite and division at mexico and its people. much of the border between the united states and mexico is already separated by the rio grande river. a clear natural obstacle between the two countries. high traffic areas along our southern border are further separated by over 650 miles of pedestrian and vehicle fencing currently on the border. congress has provided the department of homeland security with robust funding since the department's creation to sharply increase the number of border patrol officers including aerial drones along the border. as a result, these substantial investments by the american people, the number of immigrants without authorization has steadied declined while the number of border apprehensions are near a 40-year low. the $1.6 billion taxpayers included in this legislation
for the president's border wall should be directed for genuine needs like expanding education opportunities for our children, rebuilding our nation's aging infrastructure. i ask my colleagues if given the opportunity to amend the legislation before this chamber to remove the border wall funding. otherwise i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing the minibus appropriations bill. and i yield back my time. . the chair: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve and i would like to take the balance of my time to make some closing comments. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, in closing, i want to reiterate is a departure from regular order, wastes $1.6 billion on trump's border wall and uses fraudulent
defense numbers, guts clean energy, includes poison pill riders, leaves the remaining spending bills with no path forward. i urge my colleagues to vote know. and no. and i yield back. he chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the staff. while we may disagree strongly n some issues, our committee works in a very bipartisan way to get our bills across the finish line and to all the members of the committee and remarkable staff and ranking member, thank you for the a.m.icable way all of us conduct business as part of the history and tradition of our committee. i would be happy to yield. mrs. lowey: i thank the chairman. i think i closed prematurely
without thanking you for your leadership. it's been a pleasure working with you and i do hope that as we move the process forward, we will be able to have a final product that we can all be very proud of. so thank you again. you have been a very delightful person to work with and i thank the chair and my staff that has been so hardworking and so cooperative. we couldn't do this without cooperation from both sides of the aisle. mr. frelinghuysen: i would remind the house that just yesterday, we voted overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way to impose tough new sanctions on three agressor nations, russia, iran and north korea. each pose their unique threats to our vital interests, their neighbors and to global stability. what little in history would predict that sanctions would
change the maligned behavior of these three regimes. we need to get this bill across the finish line, to guarantee that our military is always prepared to meet any threat from anyone anywhere, whether it be china and the pacific and terrorist groups like al qaeda, isis, hezbollah, hamas and transnational drug smugglers and criminal gangs. mr. chairman, i repeat, congress' most important constitutional duty is to provide for the common defense this appropriations package before us allows us to meet that solemn responsibility and i urge support of the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purposes of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in house report 115-259. amendments en bloc described in section 3 of house resolution 473 and pro forma amendments described in section 4 of that resolution. each further amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, i may be offered by a member designated in the report and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of house resolution 473 and
shall not be subject to demand for addition of question. it shall be in order any time for the chair of the committee on appropriations to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee or appropriations or their respected designees and shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and ranking minority member on the committee of appropriations or the respective designees may offer up to 20 pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report 115-259.
for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk previously identified as amendment number 18, currently identified as amendment number 1. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. connellly of virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. connellly and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i offer an amendment that would increase funding for the government accountability office offset by a minor decrease in the funding for the accounts in the house of representatives. i'm offering the amendment for three reasons. first, the big significantly underfunds the g.a.o. and the administration is thwarting congressional oversight which we need more of.
and timely congress which struck an aggressive posture over the previous administration seems to have lost its way a bit in its constitutional authority. g.a.o. is a vital resource not only for congressional oversears and anyone interested in studying or improving the effectiveness of federal agencies. g.a.o. is the congressional watchdog. i'm sure every member has requested a g.a.o. report for the purpose of examining of executive oversight. it's a vital institution that saves taxpayer dollars. every dollar we invest in g.a.o. generates $112 return for the federal government and for the taxpayer. this oversight dividend amounted to $63 billion in financial benefits to the federal government in fiscal year 2016 alone.
unfortunately, the bill provides us provides $46.2 million less for the budget request for fiscal year 2018. one amendment would restore million of it. this has been a topic of discussion and debate. i would note that the ranking member raised the issue in the additional views section of the committee report. in the report, ranking member lowey and representative ryan stated it is irresponsible to underfnd the g.a.o. when administration first have been ordered to not comply with oversight requests. the amendment the trump administration has decided to take the normal routine congressional oversight work. the administration has ignored the seven-member rule and authority enacted into law in 1928, which delegates authority
to any seven members of my committee, the committee of oversight to require an agency to submit information requested of it related to the jurisdiction of our committee. he trump zration argued that agencies and departments could ignore requests for documents and other information from members of the minority party. on june 7, republican senator chuck grassley, who knew the benefit of getting information requests in the minority answered, wrote a scathing letter to president trump urging him to reject the opinion sm the opinion stated only requests from committees or their chairs or authorized. senator grassley, republican chairman of the judiciary committee called it nonsense. fact exposes it
to a lack of professionalism and objectivity. he said oversight brings traps and transparency brings accountability. shutting down oversight requests doesn't drain the swamp. those are the words of chuck grassley. i have witnessed firsthand the committee's issues of oversight. whereas during the owe baum after administration, one would have thought like the british empire, the sun never sets on the jurisdiction of our committee. now suddenly they have a narrow interpretation of the committee's role of the primary oversight body of the house of representatives. if the administration is going to ignore the minority in congress and the majority is allergic to the demands of g.a.o. are going to grow and with that should come greater resources. and the house should join
senator grassley and demand that this administration not impede congressional oversight activities. in the absence of the administration ack seeding to this request, we have to send an important message to the executive branch of accountability by better funding of the g.a.o. this will not solve the g.a.o. funding but would send a message about the premium we place on the principle of robust oversight of the executive branch. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kansas seek time in opposition to the amendment? >> i seek time in opposition. i thank the chairman and thank the gentleman from from virginia to his amendment to add a million dollars to the $445 million that we spend in the government accountability office. mr. graves: the g.a.o. is the government watchdog. they are the watchdog of what happens in this city and we are concerned whether it is a
democrat or republican president we want a g.a.o. to root out fraud, waste and abuse and provide economic data and do our job help holding the government accountable. and that's why we work in this bill to keep funding steady for the g.a.o. and we have i.g. reports to make them public and online but we have tight constraints in our budget. while we work to fund additional security needs and critical infrastructure projects and much needed cyber security improvements, reducing the money that goes to m.r.a.'s would weaken our ability to communicate with our constituents and i don't think that's the gentleman's intent but that would be the result. we actually have a slight increase in what the g.a.o. can spend in our budget. so there is a slight increase
and at a time when budgets are being decreased across congress. many of our constituents are tightening their belts and learning how to do more with less and putting food on the table and working in a family budget. we have to do the same thing. the g.a.o. gets more money this year and they have the ability to carry out their function at $445 million. i don't believe going to $446 million is going to achieve the significant changes that maybe mr. connolly would like to see. so we aren't able to accommodate this request. our member budgets are at 12% below what they were when the republicans took over the house. we are 12% below and many members are concerned they don't have the resources to provide what they need to for their constituents. this would exacerbate problems. with that, we would have to
oppose this amendment. we want the g.a.o. to remain strong and we slightly increased their funding but we can't add to the m.r.a. budgets. so with that, mr. chairman, we would oppose the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment s not agreed to. it's now in order to consider mendment number 2 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from utah seek recognition? mrs. love: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 115-259 utah. by mrs. love of the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentlewoman
from utah, mrs. love, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from utah. mrs. love: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the opportunity to speak to my proposed amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill. my amendment will have zero budgetary impact and the intent is to merely advocate for the expansion of permissible uses of the m.r.a. funds that have already been designated for member security. currently the appropriations committee has provided m.r.a. resources for providing member security away from capitol complex. however, this money may not be currently spent on security out of member -- at a member's private residence. in the current environment, including myself, have faced threats that extends to our homes and families. and a person put my address on facebook and twitter with a statement that states, we have signed your death certificate. you won't see us coming. in fact, in recognition of this disturbing trend, a recent
advisory opinion held that the campaign funds may be used, quote, to install or upgrade residential security systems that do not constitute constructionual improvements to a member's home. m.r.a. funds for member security may be used in this same way. we do not face these threats because we are candidates for office but because we are sitting members of congress. and i'd like to yield one minute to my colleague from louisiana's second district, mr. cedric rimmed. -- cedric richmond. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. richmond: i rise to support the gentlelady from utah's amendment. i think it's very appropriate and unfortunately we find ourselves in a time where this is needed but we have the awesome responsibility and we have to remind ourselves sometimes that we're the only 435 people in the country that will vote on this country going to war and making decisions that impact this country.
and because of that, i think that we need to make sure we safeguard ourselves in this rising time of new threats and dangers. look, we all signed up for public service and to serve our country and to make it a more perfect union. however, a lot of our families and our neighbors and our constituents that show up at our functions didn't necessarily sign up for that. so for those reasons i would just ask my colleagues to support it. i think it's a very prudent piece of legislation -- amendment at a very important time. so with that i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from utah is recognized. mrs. love: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield one minute to my colleague from oklahoma's first congressional district, representative brinden stein. the chair: the gentleman from klahoma is recognized.
mr. bridenstine: i want to thank the gentlelady for her important amendment. a lot of us received threats and i think this is a good amendment, and i'd like to thank the gentleman from louisiana for stepping up to support it as well. i'd like to reiterate the point that this amendment could save lives and it doesn't add a single penny to the budget, to the debt, to the deficit. this doesn't add a single penny, and yet it could be responsible for saving the lives of our colleagues. so i'd like to thank jalt -- the gentlewoman from utah for offering it and the gentleman from louisiana for supporting it, and i'd urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. the gentlewoman from utah is recognized. mrs. love: i'd like to go ahead and reiterate my thanks to the appropriations committee and to my colleagues and all of the support on this amendment and with that i'd like to -- i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman
yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? mr. yoder: mr. chairman, i seek unanimous consent to claim time in opposition even though i am not opposed to the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. yoder: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank mrs. love for her eloquence and leadership on this issue. she's provided a very serious proposal at a time in which in light of the recent tragedy at a baseball park here in the suburbs of virginia and what we've seen across the country, there are threats made daily against members of congress, both democrat and republican. in fact, threats are up this year over what they were all of last year combined. and we know many of these threats are simply just hot air or anger being expressed in an bad way and we've seen it on social media, twitter, facebook pages things that are just really shocking and lack the discourse and civility on how
we resolve discourse in this country. it is at another level when members of congress are put in threatening situations where they and their families legitimately believe that someone may try to harm them. and so we must ensure that we do everything we can to protect this institution, that we protect this government, that we protect democracy. and the idea that anyone in this body could be targeted based on their political beliefs like my friend and our colleague, our majority whip steve scalise was when he was shot at a baseball practice by someone who was specifically targeting republicans for their beliefs. that's sort of new in the world of the shootings that we've seen around the country that someone be specifically targeted for their beliefs. it happened to republicans now. it could happen to democrats the next time. i think we stand unified as a congress that we must improve the security in order to protect the democracy. and so our -- we saw enough of this, of course, and as my
colleague, mr. richmond said, our families didn't. home security relates to our families, making improvements that need to be made so people know if someone were to try to attack them at their home they'd be protected. we have -- in this bill we addressed security here in washington, d.c. we addressed security at our district offices at home. we've even allowed personal security, but we haven't done is allowed some sport for home security. we've seen in recent weeks the s.e.c. said we could spend campaign dollars for. others are standing up for the mmple r.a. to be ute light -- for the m.r.a. to be utilized for that. this will help stem real attacks, limited in its scope and ultimately protects democracy. members of congress should not be intimidated or injured or worse because of what they believe in. and so i ask the body to support this legislation, and i'd like to yield the balance
of my time to the ranking member of the legislative branch subcommittee, mr. ryan of ohio. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to make it unanimous here, i'd like to thank the gentlelady from utah for offering this amendment, mr. richmond for coming here to support it. again, everything's been said. this is appropriate. we are in unchartered waters here. we were at the baseball practices, we saw what happened to our colleague and, you know, we go out to events. we can have security. we go to our office, we can have security. you come home and, you know, you can't. and so i think this is appropriate. i want to thank you for taking this issue up on behalf of the body. we have so many members today that will take opportunities to diminish this body and you stood up and showed some leadership in enhancing this body and i want to support this amendment. and thank the chairman for allowing this to happen. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas.
mr. yoder: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. kildee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. kildee of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is actually quite simple. it would expand the house wounded warrior fellowship program to ensure that even more wounded veterans have the
opportunity to work here in congress and contribute their talents to our work here. we need more veterans in public service. this amendment would provide additional opportunities for veterans to continue to serve their country here in the house of representatives as legislative fellows. i think we know that these veterans bring a particular perspective and a particular set of experiences unlike anything else here. and this perspective should inform the conversations, the discussions and the deliberations we have on all subjects but particularly on subjects related to their experience and their particular perspective. we need their voices especially now more than ever. we talk about how veterans transition from their service to the world of work following their time in the military. this would increase the number
of veterans that are given the opportunity right here work alongside of us and to provide us with their perspective. this amendment is budget neutral, provides additional opportunities for veterans to help us in our work. i think it's the right thing. i urge my colleagues to support it. at this moment i'd like to eld one moment -- one minute to the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. ryan from ohio. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. just want to support this amendment. i think the wounded warrior project that we have going on here in the house of representatives is a great project, great opportunity, as you articulated, to get people in the legislative process both in our district offices and here in washington, d.c., and wanted to voice my support for that and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. kildee: thank you. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time in opposition to the amendment?
for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? mr. yoder: thank you, mr. chairman. i seek unanimous consent to seek the time in opposition even though i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. yoder: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank mr. kildee for his leadership in bringing this to the body's attention. i think, you know, the work of our men and women in service defending our nation is the highest priority for this congress and our support for them and services and health care and helping them find work and education and training, all the things they need when they come home. i think we're unified in our support they should be recognized as the heroes they are when they come back and leave service. so some of these men and women in putting themselves in the field of battle have become wounded, and sometimes very severely. they stood on the field of battle. they stood up to our enemies. they protected freedom around the globe and here at home, keeping us and our allies, our children, our families safe, keeping freedom safe and
democracy. yet, when they come home, all too often they don't have everything they need. all too often they don't feel that they are -- the promises have been kept this government has made. each and every day we are working on legislation to improve that. we've passed bills to improve veterans' programs, but the house wounded warrior program is a great example how this congress is leading by example by creating two-year fellowships for disabled veterans. the unemployment rate is higher for these men and women than it is for nonveterans and disabled veterans, in particular, and so this fellowship program provides a valuable job, a valuable experience, an opportunity for these men and women to help serve their country which is part of their -- in their d.n.a. it's who they are. when they're done serving on the battlefield they can serve in our congressional offices and it provides a great service to us. they provide the opportunity for us to have an expert on veterans' issues and military issues but many issues. they can cover a whole range of things, providing better services for us and our
constituents. in our legislation, the underlying bill, we increased the total of number of fellowships to 85 from 54 because there is a waiting list. this is a 57% increase over the previous number and 79-member offices are on the waiting list to participate in this program. so the demand is there. we certainly know there are many veterans who would love to serve in this capacity, and so we're going to -- we're excited to support this amendment, putting more resource noose this program and we're going to work with -- resources into this program and we're going to work with the gentleman from michigan so we can open up slots in a timely manner to make sure we get the men and women in the offices so they can serve. with that, mr. chairman, we support this amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd just like to express my appreciation to chairman yoder for his support and for ranking member ryan for their bipartisan support of this effort. it is the right thing to do. it will make a difference in the work that we do, and especially will make a
difference for those returning wounded warriors to give them a chance to start a career, perhaps. so with that, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 inted in house report of 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. perry: i have an amendment he at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, and a member opposed will each
control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: our nation $2 trillion in debt and $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities and we don't know the answer there, but we've got to find a way to reduce our spending and make sure the things we're paying for are worthy and actually getting what we are paying for. i'm offering amendment to h.r. 3219 to reduce the appropriations to the congressional budget office by 50.4%. we agree the c.b.o. determines the budget and economic impacts of proposed legislation which are critical to our every day decisions. oftentimes they are late and unform too often, they are woefully incorrect. i don't mean to impugn the people at the c.b.o., something is amiss. if we accept it, how are we
going to get our policy right? it is consistently incorrect and has detrimental implications. this amendment reduces the c.b.o. appropriations by 50.4%, which happens to be the exact same percentage that the c.b.o. was off when it predicted the enrollment numbers for the affordable care act exchanges in 2016. in 2010, the c.b.o. projected that 21 million people would enroll in the exchange plans by 2016. the actual enrollment was about 10.4 million people. that's an error of 50.4%. maybe the c.b.o.'s projections would have improved as the a.c.a. continued to take shape after 2010 and that seems reasonable. that's not correct. that's wrong. it didn't improve. two years later, -- correction, four years later, c.b.o. between
23 and 25 million people would receive coverage through the exchanges. in 2014, the updated c.b.o. analysis said 24 million people would receive coverage through 2016. the 2016 enrollment in the a.c.a. exchanges is 10.4 million people. it's less than half. and predict twice as much or cost twice as much and the numbers are half as much. that's a big deal. we passed the american health care act and i went to my town hall and crmple b.o. is saying, 23 million to 24 million people are going to lose their health care, the c.b.o. based the analysis on what they projected. they don't look at reality. the reality is 10.4 million, not 23 million or 25 million. but that's how they view on this
thing. that's a problem. i want to highlight the failure f the c.b.o. to cost the expansion. in 2013, they projected that 34 million would be on medicaid or chip in 2016. once again they doubled their earlier estimate to 68 million. who gets to be off by that much and still receive -- it's not like there is no accountability, there isn't any accountability mr. speaker. in march of 2016, the c.b.o. increased its projection of spending by medicaid by $146 billion. these are figures we make decisions around here. the c.b.o. must be held accountable for its consistent failure to predict budget and economic impacts. c.b.o. is a critical
contribution to our decision making and we need to be able to depend on it as such. mr. speaker, with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. > i rise time to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: i have been long enough to recognize that at times the majority party will come to some level of disagreement with the congressional budget office. we were here during the health care debate and we were here during tax cuts and all kinds of things that happened in the last 15 years that i have been here. they're not perfect and they sometimes annoy us. and as i can tell from my good friend on the other side, he is in the annoyment period with the congressional budget office, but this is an essential component to what we do here. the congressional budget office sincerely attempts to give us
the best, most accurate information that they could possibly provide us. and those estimates change over time as circumstances change over time. nd when you're talking about 1/6 of the entire united states' economy, it's going to be difficult to give you entirely accurate information. but not having this essential service here, i think, would be detriment tall to this congress and our ability to gauge and forecast into the future. i oppose this amendment strongly and vigorously and i would like to yield for three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky who i know also has a strong opinion on this matter. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. some republicans in congress and
the trump administration are engaged in a steadily escalating campaign to tear down the congressional budget office and anyone else who doesn't tell them what they want to hear. this eliminates half of c.b.o.'s budget. c.b.o. is our impartial referee and their work is indispenseable to congress. this amendment is not good for democracy and not consistent with the principles of good government. republicans claim to care about fiscal responsibility, but this amendment would destroy the office we rely on to help us meet that standard. my republican colleagues are willing to compromise the integrity of this house solely because they can't defend the bill repealing the affordable care act. they cannot explain to their constituents why they voted to leave 20 million americans unshurd and increase the cost of insurance for millions more. they are unable to justify
cutting a trillion dollars from medicaid and jeopardizing care for seniors and nursing homes and children and families struggling to make ends meet. and they are providing cuts tore the wealthiest americans. this amendment is a clear attempt to divert attention from that reality, to hide the truth from the american people and it will set a dangerous precedent. as students we would like to grade our own papers, but we can't do that in congress. we have to have somebody impartial who will grade them for us and tell us what this means to our budget and to the american people. congress created c.b.o. to give us our own sense of budgetary information and expertise so we would not have to rely on administration estimates. c.b.o. improves our ability to protect the power of the purse. and for more than 40 years, the .b.o. has done its mission
informing our decision making. the director are apointed to their positions with regard to political affiliation solely based on ability and qualifications and show no allegiance to any ideology or party when preparing their analysis. it is all too easy these days to take refuge in information that tells us what we want to hear, but that does not lead to sound policy. c.b.o. does not exist to give us information we want to hear, its job is to give us the information we need to make informed and responsible decisions. it is one of few institutions in washington that serves that role. it is beneath congress to attack its role and should be embarrassing to my republican colleagues they are launching these attacks because they can't defend their damaging effects of repealing the affordable care act. this needs to stop. i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. ryan: i yield back. mr. perry: can i inquire the time remaining? he chair: you have one minute. i don't disagree with my colleagues on the other side and i said that. we need the c.b.o. we created the c.b.o. the problem is it's not reliable. it's not reliable in the testimony that was just given against this amendment. that's the problem. i mean, the c.b.o. right now where there are 10.4 enrollees in two years there will be 25 million enrollees and there are leps exchanges open and fewer insurers -- it's not going up, it's going down. the c.b.o. when they say they reflect the current time, they don't. they don't even reflect reality. the c.b.o. needs to wake up.
who among us works for half the time and gets it doubly wrong and gets the same paycheck. the c.b.o. i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. the chair: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair the yes have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 115-25. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. griffith: i rise to discuss
that amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. griffith of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. griffith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, i would like to read the amendment because i think there must be some confusion on this and it will be important. the budget analysis division of the congressional budget office comprising 89 employees with annual salaries aggregating $15 million is hereby abolished. the duties, i underline duties, imposed by law on regulation of employees are hereby transferred to the director of the
congressional budget office. that's the simple amendment. at this point in time, i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meadows: and i thank my colleagues for raising the issue, but it is more an issue of accuracy than anything else. as we look at this, mr. chairman, it's real easy to look at c.b.o. and realize that they are the one group that makes a weather man's 10-day forecast look accurate. they consistently miss it all the time. when you look at the 2002 farm bill, they missed it by $137 billion. the 2008 farm bill, they missed by $309 billion and eventually it adds up to real money. even with that, let's look at the sale of 64 million barrels of oil from the strategic oil
preserve. they actually said there's no income from that, that it costs the government to get rid of 64 million barrels of oil. what kind of analysis does that? so if my friend opposite wants to debate this over the accuracy, i welcome it. and it is time we deal with this. i thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. griffith: i yield myself two minutes. mr. chairman, we have heard some of the problems with c.b.o. from mr. meadows, we heard from mr. perry immediately before on his amendment. the c.b.o. is to help congress with legislation. i don't believe the agency currently constituted has or can do so effectively. too often predictions made by c.b.o. turn out to be far off the mark.
now we heard about the 2002 farm bill and the 2008 farm bill being offered by mr. meadows, that's true. people back at home may not realize, we don't do a farm bill every year, but roughly every five years, so there haven't been that many farm bills to score where they have gotten it wrong. one of our favorites on the energy and commerce committee, in 2015 we decided to push forward and sell some broadband spectrum. c.b.o. said zero dollars would be yielded from that sale. i use this all the time when talking to high school students because you don't have to be a b.o. person that broadband spectrum has price and zero is not the right score. in the end it brought in $44
billion and c.b.o. was wrong. . mr. perry talked about obamacare. but it's time after time after time they've gotten things wrong. they said it cost more or didn't save as much. in fact, i just saw today a report put out by one that the per patient oncology drug costs than 6 to 2.3 times lower what c.b.o. said they were going to be from roughly 2003 to 2013, according to that study. now, here's where we get some interest -- i want my colleagues -- how many? oh, my time's expired. then i will save that lovely point later. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, this amendment is breathtaking and t's completely overt
vindictiveness. some members don't like the calls refs make in games and you can have your opposition and your own opinion. here we're trying to get the referee fired. and we could not function as a group here if we're going to continue to try to demean and criticize this very group that's trying to help us do our job. as i said a few minutes ago, the democrats have had a long list of frustrations with the c.b.o., but did we have the president, the leader of our party and a significant number of members of the united states congress start badmouthing the c.b.o., we did not. we had our complaints, in all fairness, but we think that this group of professionals is essential to how this body functions. and i would like to take this opportunity, if you are not just going to believe democrats on this issue, to yield so --
to yield to the very distinguished chairwoman of the budget committee, mrs. black. two minutes, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to voice my concerns about this amendment and i think everyone in this house has a lot of issues, as already been talked about, with the current modeling that's used by the congressional budget office and i'm certainly one of those people. but this amendment is not the best way to accomplish our goal of obtaining better information and analysis from the c.b.o. the c.b.o. is an important organization. it provides vital information that congress does need to make our best decisions. however, the modeling and the scoring methods they currently are using need to be scrutinized, especially their behavioral predictions. for example, in 2010, the c.b.o. projected that 21 million americans would be covered by obamacare in 2016. when in reality less than 13 million americans have actually obtained coverage. in fact, during their scoring
of the house republican health care plan, c.b.o. described their own estimates which rely on behavioral predictions as extremely uncertain. and that's why the house budget committee plans to hold a series of hearings this fall on c.b.o. to gain a better understanding of their methods and how we can work to improve their ability to give congress better information which we obviously need. and as chairman of the budget committee, i take this responsibility very seriously and will approach these hearings in the pursuit of truth and accuracy so we can make laws that better serve our community. we all realize that c.b.o. has room for improvement, but this amendment being offered tonight is not the best way to achieve that. instead, we need to have a deliberative discussion in the budget committee and amongst everyone in the house and i look forward to doing exactly that in the coming weeks and months and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from ohio. mr. ryan: i thank the
gentlelady. can i inquire how much time we have left? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a distinguished member on the house ways and means committee. >> thank you, mr. ryan. previous speakers said how could a group so far off in their analysis? mr. neal: well, they were that far off with the bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and alan greenspan was certainly off. and we had the slowest growth since hoover was president based on $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts. so this is analysis. it's an economic forecast. it's not an algorithm where you pick up the computer, you push a button and all of a sudden you get a score. so i'm in opposition to this amendment because they play a vital role every single day even when they are not entirely accurate in keeping a scorecard. members and staff on both sides, particularly at the ways and means committee, rely on
their hardworking and nonpartisan analysis for what they do every day. i have never in 29 years in this house said to a member of c.b.o., are you a republican or are you a democrat? when we demean professional achievement from economists who try and strive every single day to come up with an accurate forecast, we do this institution no good. we should have a high regard for what these people do every single day, and let me say this, by the way, more accurate than the office of management and budget, during my recollections, who worked for presidents who generally didn't come up with forecasts that presidents might or might not like. the c.b.o. is an independent agency and we need to keep it here. congress could not do its work without the c.b.o., and as tim ryan said a few minutes ago, this is the equivalent of let's beat up the referee after we don't like the outcome of the soccer game. let's jump the referee and tell
them, you better go back in and change the score so that we might meet perhaps popular polling forecast, which i might tell you what happened in november, weren't so good either for all of us. now, regardless what political party we are members of we should have regard for this house of representatives and the independent role that c.b.o. offers. and chairman kevin brady stands with me on this, leave the .b.o. alone. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. costa. the chair: the gentleman may not yield blocks of time. mr. ryan: i yield to the gentleman from california. mr. costa: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as one of the three co-chairs of the blue dog coalition, a group of democrats who are committed to bringing our nation's deficit and debt under control, i rise in opposition to this amendment.
this amendment would in fact eliminate the division in the c.b.o. area. and frankly, it serves, we all know, as a valuable role as a nonpartisan advisor to congress on the costs and tradeoffs of the legislation and the budget of the united states. although you don't see these folks on tv every day, the -- o. staff have staffs staff, their estimate will never be perfect. the c.b.o. is transparent about that. and that said, estimates provided by the c.b.o. are objective. they're based on facts and transparent calculations. the staff who make up these estimates aren't swayed by the political rhetoric on either side of this spectrum on the house floor and what lawmakers need in order to govern responsibility. without the c.b.o., the lawmakers in washington would be flying blind, developing major legislation without
knowing what the real consequences are. just like you wouldn't drive a car while blindfolded, you shouldn't be voting on legislation without knowing what the real costs, intended or unintended. after all, these are taxpayers' dollars. this amendment is dangerous for our nation and there's no other way to describe it. as a society, one must accept facts what they are, whether in our favor or not. facts are facts. i guess you believe in alternative facts. in fact, c.b.o. acts as an umpire for us here in congress, calling balls and strikes as best you can. you may not like the call. you may not like the strike zone. you may think it's simply wrong, but you don't attack the umpire. and that's what this is. it's an attack, attack the umpire because you don't like the call. if you don't -- if you attack the umpire, why don't you improve your game? at the end of the day, what we're talking about here is taxpayers' dollars. we need to keep the congressional budget office
intact, and i oppose this legislation, as do all of the blue dogs. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chairman. and i, too, rise in strong opposition to this mean-spirited amendment. this attack on the integrity and professionalism of the congressional budget office is shameful and part of a strategic assault on the objectivity and expertise of our civil service. with this amendment, the republicans are seeking to punish the nonpartisan c.b.o. because they don't agree with their finding regarding the republican plan to replace obamacare. i understand that for the trump administration it's an inconvenient truth that 22 million americans will lose coverage under their plan. but just because you lose in the game doesn't mean you can fire the ref. partisan talking points cannot replace unbiased analysis.
let's not forget that c.b.o.'s director was appointed by a republican speaker and praised by then-budget chairman and current secretary of health and human services tom price. mr. chair, i represent more federal employees than any other member of the house, and many -- most of these 89 positions at the c.b.o. that this amendment seeks to eliminate are my constituents. it's simply unacceptable that we somehow suggest that they and others in the civil service re not honest. the so-called holman rule should concern every member back in congress. it enabled members to target individual federal employees and their pay. i warned that the rule would be abused and used as a way to politically target civil servants and that's what we are seeing here today. i ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, let me just say quickly, again, and
reiterate, we're living in a world now where facts are trying to be diminished, science is trying to be diminish and we lie on these professionals to give as accurate of information we can possibly attain at the time from professionals that are in this office. we rely on this office very much to make the decisions that we make here that have such great importance. while they are not always perfect, i think they always put forth a good product for us and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: i yield to myself --ch time as i may con mr. griffith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. let's look at this amendment because the c.b.o. scored it and they said, c.b.o. estimates that your amendment would have no net effect on budget authority or outlays. no net effect. who here actually believes that
eliminating 89 positions, as the gentleman from virginia, my friend, just said, it's going to affect his people. who believes 89 people being eliminated and $15 million in aggregate salaries has no net effect on budget authority or outlays? i don't think any of us believe that. here's the conundrum that my friends have on the other side of this issue. a yes vote means you agree with me that something needs to be reformed at c.b.o. a no vote agrees you agree with c.b.o.'s assessment that this amendment abolishing 89 employees will have no effect. therefore, i would submit to you that the c.b.o. in effect has determined that their budget analysis division has no value. therefore, if you actually support c.b.o. you must vote present. i ask my colleagues to join me with a yes and let's start the reform at c.b.o. so we can get accurate numbers. and if you don't agree with this reform, i ask that you vote present or else you, too, are agreeing with the c.b.o. that the budget analysis division has no value.
and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no opposed is a no. -- say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. griffith: mr. chair, i respectfully request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, and a member