tv House Appropriations Panel Debates 2021 Defense Spending - Part 1 CSPAN July 14, 2020 11:12pm-4:15am EDT
and reform committee hears from cybersecurity experts who ask the creation of a national cyber director to streamline the federal government's response towards separate tax across agencies. that gets underway at 12 p.m. eastern >> c-span.org has live coverage wednesday of the house small business committee hearing on proposals for aiding small businesses affected by the coronavirus. it starts at 1 p.m. eastern. the house appropriations committee debated the $695 billion 2021 defense department spending bill. following opening remarks, lawmakers offered amendments focused on the authorization for use of military force, the guantanamo bay military prison, and the trumpet administration's southern border wall.
chair lowey: i will say good morning again. i call this meeting of the committee on appropriations to order. before we begin, house rules require me to remind you that we have set up an email address to which members could send anything they wish to submit in writing. that email address has been provided to your staff. our first order of business today is consideration of the department of defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2021. i will not recognize -- to present the bill. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. before i begin my remarks, i
reluctantly have to acknowledge this will be my final opening statement before the house appropriations committee. i have no new revelations to make but for those of you who will remain on this committee, there are a few things i would like to say. him saying them as someone who is so compulsive, he saved the congressional record on the day he was appointed to this committee after years of efforts, which makes mr. rogers, my good friend, the only person in this room who has served longer either as an associate staff or member. i want to make the observation that i am an appropriater to my core. when people ask my father who lived to be 101, he said i played politics. if somebody asked me that i will
say i'm an appropriater. i started as associated staff in january of 1977. i would point out that we are a unique committee. if the work of this committee is not completed, there is no government of the united states of america. we are the ones who are charged with funding the oversight of the entire government so it is effective and efficient as possible. in some ways the committee has the ability to achieve bipartisan solutions. in part this is due to the budget control act of 2011. if we only cut discretionary spending, we could balance the budget. mandatory spending comes up to 70% of the money each year of the federal government.
as mr. womack and others have pointed out in other markups, we must deal with mandatory spending. for future generations, budget integrity, most important, there will be no money left to appropriate if we don't deal with this issue and every appropriation dollar is an investment in this country. we need to invest in help, education, infrastructure, jobs. we also need to deal with revenue. in the year 2000, the last year the federal government had the surplus, revenue as a gdp was 20%. in fiscal year 2019 revenues were 16.3%.
we need a certain amount of revenue to invest in this good and great country. finally, here is a couple of notes. never say something is above my pay grade. every time that has been said in this committee, i cringe because we are appropriators. no one is above your pay grade. we may need other people to get something done. others have stood up and said we cannot authorize this committee. why did you want to get on this committee? when appropriate in conjunction with the authorizer's, we have been asked by authorizer's to authorize.
finally, there are great bills to come down the road. it could be the greatest environmental policy in the world. to be the best deal in the world. there is this tiny bit of new mandatory spending which the chairwoman has repeatedly talked about and tried to target. it is just a little bit of mandatory spending. that is how we have gotten to 70% of control. the next time we have vote in this congress or future congresses, think it through. i do thank you both for that indulgence. moving on to the bill, i need to thank my ranking member. his continued commitment to being collegial, transparent, and bipartisan. i cannot overrate the value of his friendship and the partnership that we have. i also want to express my gratitude to the chairwoman and ranking member, we would not be here without their leadership and help.
miss granger chaired the subcommittee in the last congress. this will be anita's last, i cannot thank you enough for a dedicated life of service, leaving this world a little better. i really respect you. i also want to thank every member of our subcommittee. it is a joy to work with you regardless of where you sit in that room. i want to thank the subcommittee staff, particularly our clerks as well as the associate staff for their hard work. i also want to recognize the 2020 military fellows for their
contributions. having to assemble the bulk of the bill, it increase the degree of difficulty substantially as it has for all of the subcommittees. i commend them for their professionalism and acumen. legislation recognizes the complex challenges the members of our armed forces and intelligence community face every day throughout the world. to ensure they are able to continue to meet these challenges and complete missions to the best of their ability. it is important to highlight several investments. one is $758 million in procurement for covid recovery. that is for the second, third, and fourth tier suppliers. this has been of particular interest to mr. calvert. i would ask any member that has constituents or companies in their district that meet that classification and somehow that relief is not made it to them, you have got to let us know.
i'm not necessarily worried about people at the top. i'm worried about the lower tier suppliers and employees. if there is a problem in your district, we do want to know. the legislation faces several reporting requirements specific to covid-19. the budgetary impact on the department are still largely undetermined. some programs will cost more. there will be savings obtained through delayed or canceled events or activities. it is imperative that the committee and congress have as much detail as possible to conduct oversight. the bill continues to focus on the well-being and morale of those in uniform and dod, civilians and their communities. built by an additional 116 million dollars for upgrades to childcare facilities in the
report contains language to prevent innovative ideas to address this serious backlog for childcare. it provides $1.49 billion for environmental restoration. $415 million above the request. the report take steps to stop the department from closing military treatment facilities and producing military health care. these plans were justified to the committee prior to the pandemic and even hired to defend -- harder to defend. $327 million to address the ongoing epidemic of sexual assault in the military and at the service academies. that is $49 million more than requested. i must express my personal upset over this issue. a recent report has found sexual assault rate for women has
jumped 50% from 2016 to 2018. the budget remains stagnant. i would say it is not just a question of money. year after year we have testimony from officials who contend that they are really committed to solving this problem. we are going backwards. the department has to do a better job. it contains several provisions to reign in the habitual redirection of funding of congressional intent. i do want to express my upset with how these actions have irreparably damaged the department's credibility.
one official rightfully referred to these transfers as anomalies. these are just anomalies. i refer to them as habitual abuses by the department. in recent years the department leadership has not missed an opportunity to claim that a 3%-5% annual growth in the budget is necessary to support the national defense strategy. the same leaders facilitated the transfer of nearly $10 billion to nondefense activities not enumerated in their own and national defense strategy. while this was happening they repeatedly request more flexibility from congress for executing the budget and reprogramming authorities. the sense of entitlement is galling and i hope at some point the department will have the leadership in place who recognizes the constitutional
prerogative and restores trust to the process. i would like to reiterate what the profound -- what a profound privilege it has been to serve on this committee. i want to thank my chair ranking member and all the members who have logged so many hard hours in making this possible. i would ask for your support and i get back my time. >> i would like to recognize the subcommittee ranking member, mr. calvert. >> thank you. before i begin my statement i would like to thank the chairwoman for her many years of dedicated service. when you have let this committee is an example to all of us in our country and your district. we are a better place because of your service. i wish you all your happiness in your retirement.
i would like to thank our full committee ranking made -- for the work on this bill. i very much appreciated her insight and input. it is hard to believe that is your last full committee. it has been an honor to work with you in what is a true partnership dedicated to ensuring our national security. a touching and eloquent tribute to the chairman during our subcommittee markup. that is classified so i cannot repeat it here. i know how uncomfortable pete is for having a spot on him. he does not seek credit or attention for the work he does for servicemembers or families. he doesn't because it is the right thing to do. the chairman has done more to advance these issues than almost anyone. his legacy will be felt for
generations. we have a tradition in our committee which is extremely nonpartisan. it is our duty to provide the best quality of life for men and women who serve in the united states military and provide the best equipment and materials that they have to make sure that if we ever get in a fight, it is not a fair fight. that is something that should not be controversial nor partisan. i will miss your friendship and i know you will be one zoom call away. it is important to recognize the chairman's deputy of staff, joe has been an essential part of this defense team for many years. joe does not like the spotlight on him but it is appropriate to recognize all of the hard work to help our service members and families. we provide funding for many key
programs that are essential to our security, consistent with the national defense strategy and focus on the great power competition with china and russia. bill will enhance our national security capabilities by furthering additional fifth-generation combat aircraft, additional submarines, while providing the resources they have requested including the critical isr capability. there will be new technologies essential to maintaining u.s. military superiority. it is important for everyone on this committee to recognize that because our investment, they started investing in research for pandemic prevention back in 2002. a lot of the progress that has been made was because of their hard work and also what we are doing to begin testing.
covid has many impacts throughout the department of defense. i want to thank the chairman for mitigating damage through suppliers. their work is vital and we must do everything to protect those jobs. i provide the health and welfare to reflect long-standing concerns of so many of our members, health programs, sexual assault prevention, we included the strong oversight for electronic health records along with all the rest of us. that is why it is so unfortunate for the broad support overshadowed by political issues. the importance of getting this bill done on time cannot be
overstated. a continued resolution wastes roughly $1.7 billion a month through the inability to sign contracts, delays and productions, other drawdown. this year it would halt many modernization priorities that are vital to maintaining military superiority over threats such as china and russia. this is no way to run the most sophisticated professional fighting force in the world. there are currently over 200,000 u.s. service members deployed around the world ensuring threats never meet our shores. they do their job every day. there is no alarms for pause or break. they do what we ask. it is time congress does what is necessary and what is required in the u.s. constitution and
provide for the common defense of our nation in a timely and consistent manner. while this is a very strong bill, there are numerous provisions like the southwest border wall. it will drive veto threat from the administration. it is important this bill becomes law as soon as possible or i cannot support it in its current form. we will have a bill that could be signed when it gets to the president's desk. there are a lot of things that will happen between now and then. i learned -- i want to thank my staff from the majority and minority for their hard work and i look forward to getting this bill done. i yield back. >> i would like to recognize
myself for opening remarks. i would like to take a moment to recognize my friend and collegue. sadly this is his last defense markup. he grew up in a household in gary focused on public service. from his time as a staffer to being elected in 1984, no one has fought harder for the people of indiana and the need to domestically manufacture product. our country is stronger as a result of his advocacy for steelworkers. as a model of dedication, integrity, intelligence, and honor. as i mentioned in my subcommittee remarks, the lives of our service members are better because of your leadership. i especially thank you for your partnership during my time as ranking member and chairwoman of
the committee. we will miss you. we wish you the very best. i wish you lots of happiness. i wish you the next chapter -- i wish you the best in your next chapter of life. would like to thank the rest of the subcommittee staff for the long hours and dedication. psychological and economic impact of this pandemic, we are reminded that safety and security are fragile. we know that we live in a dangerous world. we also recognize the choices we make to stay safe need to be reasonable and responsible. this bill provides the defense department with the appropriate
level of resources to address and evolving threat landscape. we will ensure the security of our nation and our allies. our service members are well trained and equipped and they are prepared for future military needs. we have the most capable and advanced military in the world. this bill honors the admission by adequately funding programs for servicemembers and their families. including provisions to end the trump administration defense funds to pay for a wasteful border wall. specifically, this bill strengthens national security with robust funding to support
ongoing operations and maintenance of existing access. it recurs the latest military systems while investing in research. especially the growing needs of cyberspace. it provides cyber support for our allies and defense partners. i applaud the subcommittee for including provisions that prohibit explosives, nuclear weapons testing. these investments bring safety to our nation and our forces. the bill also includes a higher quality of life for our service members and families including access to medical care and an increase in importance for health initiatives and research.
it supports the critical need for childcare and excellent schools for our military families. it also provides critical funding to address sexual assault. our national security and finding reasonable common ground is a bipartisan issue. i hope we will enact a final bill that reflects that tradition. i congratulate the chairman on an excellent bill and urge support. i would like to recognize ranking member granger for her opening remarks. >> before i begin my remarks about the defense bill, i, like
the others would like to take a moment to recognize the chairman of the subcommittee. i had the honor of working closely with the subcommittee. the chairman is one-of-a-kind. his passion and commitment to their families is absolute. he served with dignity, modesty, determination. he is also a joy to work with. he leaves behind an extraordinary legacy and he will be greatly missed. i also want to thank my friend ken calvert for the outstanding job he is doing leading this subcommittee. cannot find anybody more committed to our national security. providing funding is one of the most important roles the founders gave to congress. turning to the bill before us, i
am very pleased to see the chairman is focused on important procurement money that is so essential for our security. they will also prioritize health care and quality-of-life issues, which has significant impact on readiness. we must make sure the d.o.b. end services stay focused on these issues. he also brought up the sexual assault, we will continue to do even more of that. i appreciate the chairman, i'm thankful for his efforts and those of the committee. i have concerns with several policy that will prevent me from supporting it this time. this bill must become law and i'm concerned that many of the positions are vetoed. these provisions include limiting funds to construct a wall or fence at the border,
renaming military installations, exempting the ukraine security existence initiative and continuing to limit dod's budget flexibility. we will have to drop or modify any controversial language. this bill is too important. we must provide troops with the funds they need to defend our nation. this bill is too important to be slowed down by politics. i yield back. >> are there any other members wishing to make general about the bill? >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for your many years of service to our subcommittee chair. i enjoyed working with you on this committee. i know there are many important
parts of this bill that would not have been there if it were not for your efforts. i wish to defense appropriations bill were smaller. i know this bill is written for the authorization level set and i will continue to do everything in my power to ensure lower ndaa authorization levels. that is why i have never voted in favor of an ndaa on the house floor. we all recognize during this pandemic that it is not serving what most people would be our nation biggest threat right now. we don't set those levels of defense spending in the appropriations bill. we do that in the ndaa. that is where i will continue to have that fight. we also will debate and hopefully include important antiwar initiatives. to prohibit any funds to be used towards a war towards iran. these are debates we should be having.
i will support these efforts and i'm proud to be working with my colleagues to cut the ndaa authorization levels by 10% for next year. it is my hope that it will be successful and that when this committee drafts it will be tethered to a dramatically reduced ndaa authorization level. i yield back. >> mr. rogers is recognized. >> thank you for yielding. there are two reasons, one is to pay tribute to the outgoing chairman of the subcommittee. it has served this country so very well. he served here on staff.
that is before becoming a member himself. he sets at fort members across the house and the senate. mr. chairman, thank you for your service, we wish you all the best in your new chapter that you are starting to write. the second reason i wanted to speak weekly was to personally thank the chairman and the ranking member. we are putting strong language in the bill with the dod electronic health record in an attempt to link the v.a. and hud to the same internet service to prevent misgivings that may occur because of the inability because of these systems to talk to each other. as many of you are aware, i have
been working on this measure with the committee. that is because of a young man in my district who lost his sight. the v.a. could not get into his records from an injury in the mideast. he lost his sight. i know that would not happen today. we are closer to full in operability between the dod and v.a. then we have ever been. i hear that same refrain, agency to agency for more than a decade. that is why we must maintain strong oversight of the progress of dod and v.a. and demand
accountability. as the dod and v.a. electronic health record systems again, it is essential that we as a committee keep our finger on the pulse of the situation and ensure this program reaches the finish line in a timely fashion. this bill did just that. it is very strong oversight with dod and we are getting the same results from the subcommittee, i think we are on the right track. we have to keep an eye on time and and timeout to make sure the bureaucracy does not win the battle, which they have so far. i thank you for the very strong oversight language you have in your bill.
i yield back. >> just briefly, i want to thank my good friend mr. rogers for bringing up this issue once again. many on this committee have been working with us. it is outrageous it has cost so many millions on such an important issue and they still cannot get it done. although i am leaving this committee, i am counting on you my good friend to keep your oversight done. we cannot afford not to make sure that our veterans, people who have served our country have the very best health care that have the responsibility to provide.
i'm happy to yield to miss maccallum. >> thank you, madam chair. i rise in strong support of this bill. i would like to thank you and ranking member calvert for your tremendous work on this. this legislation is filled with important measures in the industrial basis of our country strong. i thank you for your commitment including the ongoing crisis for contamination with current and former -- most of us have a military in our district. environmental remediation as well as formal use defense sites are critical.
they keep our surrounding communities healthy and safe. i'm pleased to see this bill provides robust funding for defense health programs and medical research so important to our military families into the health of our nation. i want to thank you for your years of service on this committee and in congress. as i said earlier, i am from minnesota. in minnesota we often refer to our northstar. you have been a northstar for me and leadership in teaching me how to be a better chair on the committee. your way of conducting this committee to embrace members and make everyone feel important
leaves me speechless at times. i will continue what you taught me. always going for it is important. sometimes it is the last word that is important. i wish you all the success in the years to come and thank you for the work you did on the bill for us today. >> i would now like to recognize ms. kester for her remarks. >> thank you, i would like to add my words of thanks for the valued great lakes colleague whose friendship, acumen and leadership over four decades i will miss dearly. also knowing the region he has been privileged to represent and the downdraft on the economy is truly remarkable. ranking member calvert, ranking member granger, and our extraordinary staff, thank you all.
i want to applaud the chairman for his commitment to preserve the balance of power between the legislative branches. chair mccloskey has always put those who serve and protect our constitutional rights first. he is once again asserted the need to restrict efforts that shortchange security for political purposes. this bill meets the challenge of the reemergence of revisionist powers without neglecting the ongoing hotspot threats. it modernized our forces and their capabilities. it provides robust investment in research and development as well as procurement. in this year of covid-19 and political rest, our service members have been called upon in addition to global initiatives. i applaud the chairman's support. america will benefit provisions
addressing readiness, research, and cyber security enhancement. they will continue our commitment for america's democratic alliances and meet serious threats to it. hybrid threats such as in ukraine with global security and involving -- evolving threat and the environment. this nation cannot focus on total force without contemplating the readiness of our young people to enter military service or the military industrial base industry. this bill reflects that reality. it includes an increase in funds with the counter drug program. particularly those hardest hit. america grapples with how to
reduce the severity and impact of our nation opioid epidemic. importantly, it bolsters workforce including in the national guard youth challenge program. as i mentioned, the funds are most important for our service members. includes funds for defense health research and much-needed areas, particularly traumatic injuries and neuropsychological health. it calls on the department of health to establish a baseline for reference for every service member. we appreciate you so very much. you could incorporate these priorities and wish the repurposed thing i know he will do when he leaves us. he so deserves those years. your father is smiling on you. >> thank you, madam chairman.
i want to recognize and celebrate our distinguished colleagues in party chair. a lifelong hoosier has served in the congress for two decades. they have five for american jobs, american defense, for american men and women. i commend you for the leadership of the defense appropriations subcommittee. i want to thank you for your kind cooperation and your steadfast commitment for the well-being of our nation and citizens. for understanding the balance between national readiness and the well-being health care of our men and women in uniform and their families.
over the last few days of sitting next to each other, pete and i have talked about our families. talked about his dad in politics. my mom passed away just a couple of years ago at 103. the basis of what they were about him what they passed on to us was how i can see were you needed want to be so you can impact change. with that we have these conversations more with one another regularly. connecticut has long been known as the arsenal of the republic. again and again the chairman throughout his time has tried to help me, help my state, and its workers. for him it was a team effort. we are in this together.
always open to feedback and request. the bill before it is a full funding. he always just as helicopters. full funding for continued development. preserving the production wrap, decreasing cost with stability and jobs. i also have to say a word about defense health programs. many of you know i am a survivor of ovarian cancer. $35 million for research is deeply personal to me and critical to improving prevention, early diagnosis, and survival rate. 21,750 women will receive a new diagnosis this year of ovarian cancer. 14,000 will die from ovarian cancer. ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths amongst women. let me close by thanking the chair for his leadership over the years.
it is an honor to work with you. the career is indicative of thoughtful work translates to a work policy. it is proof our national defense advances the well-being of our national family and its members. thank you, i yield back. >> mr. price is recognized. >> i want to join in the course of tributes for the collaborative process that has produced a very fine bill this year thanks to the subcommittee staff on both sides. these tributes are heartfelt and i want to add my word for our service together in the house and on this committee.
we were appointed at about the same time as part of an interesting process to secure employment. he worked tirelessly on this committee. i appreciate the words this morning about what this committee means to him. those words are well chosen and he has lived up to them. nobody understands better. the power of the purse. the key article one power of the constitution. nobody is more vigilant about many ways, large and small that the power may be challenged or eroded. i thank him for his words of wisdom and even more for working on this subcommittee to be effective.
to be bipartisan, to operate in a way that preserves the power of the purse. it really is key to our institutional future. nobody has been more attentive to that than pete. there is one provision in this bill that i want to express my appreciation for. last year's ndaa had the world grant program. i championed it as part of a wider bipartisan effort. the ndaa authorize d.o.b. to award three-year competitive grants to department of defense education activity schools and to local agencies that host a junior rotc program. these grants could be used for
the establishment and expansion of language programs in elementary and secondary schools. the future national security and economic well-being will depend substantially on the ability of our citizens to write, read, speak, and understand the languages and cultures of other nations. unfortunately there is plenty of evidence about several measures the united states have neglected language in the educational curriculum. the u.s. puts itself at a disadvantage in our ability to communicate with our international peers. how do you learn languages? the critical window. the critical window for language learning is from ages 10-18. that makes investment in our elementary and secondary schools a top priority. it isn't just a luxury. it is vital to our security.
i want to thank the chair and and upg member to stun the readiness grant program as well as the language and readiness implementation plan. thank you for your work and dedication to this committee. >> ms. wasserman schultz is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to associate myself with the chairman. he is a man of few words. whenever he does take the opportunity to speak outside of the normal course of our discussions, i always take the time to listen. he spends a lot of time thinking thoughtful, and hisening.,he is observations are really always on point.
today was no expection. i have had the privilege of serving on this committee since my second term in congress, and the adage which i know many of us can heed carefully is to talk less and listen more. and he is really -- he really exemplifies that characteristic. appreciative of his, the importance of you underscoring the appropriations committee is unique and special, and that we too often of late have forgotten our culture, which i learned when i first came, which is that we are there are democrats, , republicans and appropriators. and that this committee has always endeavored and should continue to endeavor to work closely together across the aisle, and that's why we always
hear between our subcommittee chairs, the accolades and camaraderie and collegiality. we just need to make sure as we will no longer serve in the present that we heed your advice and remember the importance and significance of this committee and make sure that we fight for it because that's incredibly important. ranking member calvert for the leadership on the bill. this is not an easy bill to manage. this is a bill that has controversy. it's a bill that's essential but nevertheless attracts a lot of strong feelings. but this bill is above all else important to make sure we can
protect the national security and the well-being of the american people. it will help keep our nation secure. take care of our servicemembers and end president trump's theft of defense funds to pay for his xenophobic border wall. the best way to guarantee the safety and efficacy of troops is to make sure that they're ready for new challenges. that's why the subcommittee provides $1.67 billion above the request for key readiness programs to prepare forces for combat operations and other peacetime missions. this provides the defense department with the resources necessary to address evolving and future threats including the emerging risks that we face from cyber attacks. this will also improve the quality of lives of our servicemembers and families by providing a 3% pay raise and increasing funding to military childcare facilities. the goal of eradicating military sexual assault and protect the dignity of all members of the armed forces.
this bill increases funding for dod sexual assault prevention and response program. we are funding potentially life-saving science with the $5.5 billion investment in peer-reviewed cancer research, and as a breast cancer survivor, that's important to me. i'm glad this bill funds and supports research for metastatic cancer. here in the u.s., one person dies every 13 minutes from metastatic breast cancer and yet it remains an understudied field. this will fund clinical trials that will reflect the demographics of the united states population. the bill will also take steps to direct funding to the army to pay for the renaming of installations and facilities where the name is of a inveterate officer. that's a provision that synergizes with a provision in the military construction and v.a. appropriations bill. further as chair of that subcommittee, i'm pleased this asserts our authority as a coequal branch of government
by prohibiting funds being diverted away from the troops in order to pay for the monument to racism along the southern border. and notably the bill also requires any unobligated funds that were stolen to pay for the border wall be returned to their original accounts and used for the purposes of congress intended. finally i appreciate how the bill includes nearly $1.5 billion for environmental restoration including $15 million for an assessment to the health implications of p.o.s. and pfoa. it urges the secretary of defense to expedite the replacement by 2024. this is an issue i care deeply about because our committee has heard from veterans about the unexpected health problems they have suffered due to water contamination, and i'm glad we are addressing that in the bill and this one. i look forward to seeing this come to the floor. i yield back balance of my time. >> mr. kilmer is recognized.
thank you, madam chair, and before i begin, i want to thank you, chairman mccluskey, for your leadership on the subcommittee. you've been a consistent champion for maintaining and improving national security and supporting our servicemembers who have courageously volunteered to serve our country. mr. chairman i want to echo what everyone acknowledging your leadership will be missed. i also want to thank ranking member calvert and the dedicated committee staff for the work on the fiscal year 2021 defense appropriations bill. so the navy's largest employer in the district i represent, and our region has seen firsthand the vital role our nations 's shipyards and supporting a national security interests. i'm grateful this bill includes funding for the naval facility sustainment modernization and restoration program to address the seismic and fire protection deficiencies at our public shipyards. we know more will be needed in the years ahead to modernize our shipyards. in addition to investing in
these, we also need to invest in the men and women who support our nation's shipyard. unfortunately the current administration has consistently worked to undermine the collective bargaining rights of our hard-working federal employees, and that's why am proud this bill includes a provision to directly combat anti-worker executive orders that have made it harder for federal employees to negotiate the pay benefits and working conditions they have earned and that they deserve. finally we have got to support the communities that support our military. this includes $50 million for the defense infrastructure program which addresses schools and other local infrastructure that support military installations. these investments will help to improve the quality of life our -- life for our servicemembers, their families and the civilian workforce that are the lifeblood of our defense communities. additionally supporting military communities means insuring the navy is a good neighbor, and i'm proud that this continues to advance to reduce military jet noise.
funding jet noise reduction technology in providing $50 million for a new noise mitigation community partnership program which will provide direct grants to support upgrades for schools and hospitals and get impacts of excessive aircraft noise down. these investments are critical to ensuring the navy can support critical training requirements while also manning good neighbor to the folks living in surrounding communities. i am proud these priorities are reflected in the bill, and i urge my colleagues to support it. >> mr. crist is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. chairman i want to express my strong support on the subcommittee's work. as members of congress, i think our job is to keep america safe. this year's defense bill meets that. with your leadership and that of ranking number calvert, we
have a number of products i am proud of. the bill includes a number of provisions i was proud to work on with the chairman and staff. we boosted oversight of the new contract removing services for military men and women, an important function impacting the lives of our servicemembers and their families. we also promoted greater access to classified contracting opportunities for small and nontraditional businesses, who face significant hurdles while trying to share their innovations and expertise with the d.o.d. and we directed the department to do a deep dive on the ways to help small businesses gain affordable access to secure steps so more businesses can participate in the contracting process. lastly i want to thank the chairman. not for just his decades of hard work and dedication as a staffer , of course a member and ultimately as chairman of our subcommittee, but for his friendship and his membership. working with you has been an honor, sir. this committee is one of the last bastions of bipartisanship on capitol hill, and it's thanks
in large part to your leadership that that important tradition continues today. in closing i request my colleagues to support the underlying reporting bill, and i yield back. >> mr. cole is recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. my remarksssociate we've had a lot of praise for , the chairman and ranking member, i think it's appropriate both cases. i represent a district that has an enormous military presence. the field artillery envy air defense artillery, school for precision fires, two of the top six missions the army modernization effort are based out of there. and then i have got the largest and most sophisticated air depot in the world, tinker air force base. if i started listing everything in this bill that was important to me or my constituents, the
20,000 that work at those facilities, i'd be here a long time. i want to thank again the chairman and the ranking member for the manner in which the y conduct the committees. ken calvert and i have been friends for a very long time. when one of my friends left a few years ago, from the great state of minnesota, he wouldn't tell me he was leaving until two minutes before he dropped the press release. i immediate he called him up, because his staff thought i would try and talk him out of leaving which i would have, and complained about this and said if you are leaving, who i going to smoke cigars with entering bourbon with now? immediately the reply came back oh, is calvert leaving too? we've been good friends and i very proud of the work he's done on that committee. i think he has a deep knowledge of defense. mr. chairman, the chairman sets
the tone for every subcommittee we have. i've watched you in my decade on defense appropriations subcommittee, as you've worked at the top in a manner of which you build relationships and conducted yourself, and i think i can sum them up in the single story when you became the , chairman of the full committee. i got a call as i'm sure everybody else on the subcommittee did, that the chairman wanted to meet with me. so i immediately told my scheduler great, when do i go see him? she said oh no he's coming here. , i said call back right away, he's the chairman, he doesn't come here, i go to him. and she did and no he's coming , here. so he came in with his terrific staff he has assembled. sent down and we visited about what my interests were, will my -- what my concerns were about defense and then he told me something i thought was profound and that summed up his career. he said i have the opportunity
to be a ranking member on the subcommittee under two great chairmen. under both of them, i never felt like i was a member or the ranking member, i was an equal partner in what we were going to do as a subcommittee. that's the way they ran at, and that's the way i intend to run it. this is going to be a committee of partners that focus on defending the united states of america, and you've been true to your word, mr. chairman. i cannot call it partisan vote in the defense appropriations subcommittee in your time as chairman. i can recall very few in anybody's time. it says a lot about that subcommittee. it particularly says a lot about you and the manner in which you have run the subcommittee at a time of great polarization, great partisanship. i don't point any fingers, it is just the time in which we live. you've been the great exception to that rule, and i don't think anybody on the committee doubts
that you thought about and put first what was good for the men and women of the united states military, what was good for the country, what was good for the institution and this community. you will be very much missed, and i want to tell you it's been an enormous honor and privilege to serve on that subcommittee during your time of leadership. and i wish you well, and i, it's something i could say to dissuade you from leaving, but you have left an unmatched legacy of bipartisanship. of thoughtful leadership and of having the right sense of priorities both in terms of our military and this institution and certainly this committee. yield back, madam chair. >> before moving to amendments, i have an announcement. now listen carefully. miss granger, in consultation
with miss granger, we will begin at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow instead of 10:00. we will gavel in at 9:00 so that we can finish in a timely manner. [applause] [laughter] mr. womack, do you have a question about that time? >> no i just have an , announcement, and that is when recently on a comfort break in one of the stalls in the men's room, i found an iphone, and if you are missing an iphone, you will find it right on that desk outside the entryway. [laughter] i was looking around to see if anybody looked lost. i didn't see anybody looking lost. but pretty soon they are going to be missing an iphone. always happy to be at your service.
i yield back. >> thank you for that very important announcement. >> it is mine. >> seeing that no other member wishes to make opening remarks. >> mr. rufus berger seeks recognition. --mystery this berger, rufusberger, you are recognized. your mic is not on. >> is it on now? >> yes. >> as everyone else has said today i want to thank him for , his leadership and demeanor, did a great job working with ranking member calvert. i want to thank all the members of the committee for their dedication in this field. as many of you know, after a terrible accident, i was prosecutor at the time, and my life was saved by university of maryland shock trauma who were consultants to land so, the
army, navy air force and , marines. my life was saved after being there for a month. the -- i ended up breaking my back. my whole neck and back are fused. i have got two artificial shoulders and five screws each foot. the support i received at the trauma literally built me into a human being that i am today. what i went through was nothing compared to the trauma our brave men and women experience in war zones around the world. and they deserve robust support. to treat their injuries. i appreciate the committee once once again funding the peer-reviewed orthopedic research program and also appreciate the record level of funding for spinal cord injury research program.
families to move to the national capital region to specialized care that a family member needs. sometimes these service members make decisions based on location of health care provider and not what's best for their career. we need to expand telehealth services for military families. i appreciate the committee and -- committee including my request to expand telehealth services specifically to military children who experience money stressors others do not. -- many stressors others do not. as cochair of the army caucus for the last nine years, i know my good friend judge carter from texas i know that fundamental , investments in research and development are critical to ensuring we continue to produce the best tech for our war fighters stay ahead of their adversaries. we need strong investment in the army research lab, arl, headquartered in maryland which has open campuses throughout the country.
i thank the committee for supporting my request for additional funding for programs and research for armor and hypersonic applications at arl. i yield back. >> before we proceed, i would all members,d keep on your masks. seeing no other member wishing to make -- >> mr. ryan seeks recognition. >> mr. ryan, you are recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to be brief in support of this bill, just add my voice to orus of support for the german. being behind him in seniority a couple seats on the committee i am probably not as sad as everyone else to see him leave. [laughter] [applause] i wish him a happy retirement. thehe comes from my part of
country, toledo, gary, youngstown, communities that have been super hard hit over the last 30 or 40 years. and there is nobody in congress or has been in congress these last decades that has fought harder for these communities, whether it was around the steel industry, which is obviously to stop some of the bleeding and the trade deals and all the rest. but also utilizing this committee here and public investments that are critical to help communities like ours move into the 21st century, close the skills gap, and bring needed economic development. these investments in this committee for every dollar could yield anywhere from $3 to $5 other dollars in the private sector investment and jobs.
you recognize that, we are going to miss you and i wish you a very happy retirement. those of us who represent will -- represent the industrial midwest will continue to fight for us. >> seeing no other member wishing to make opening remarks, i would like to recognize mr. mccluskey to add a manager's amendment. i have anhair, amendment at the desk. i ask the reading be waived. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> i would ask the reading be waived. >> without objection the reading dispensed with. >> two quick comments. that is i want to thank everyone for their kind words. one thing i look forward to is not having to look behind me every time i am walking down the stairwell to see if tim ryan is behind me. [laughter] i have a manager's amendment i -- amendment, would ask the
member support of it. just to highlight the three provisions. one deals with the issue of daycare. i was just made to learn the department of the army is closing a daycare facility in new hampshire, giving parents there little or no time and ability to find a substitute. i think that it is shameful to close the facility on such a short notice especially during a pandemic. what i particularly want to point out is the letter sent in response to justifying the closure of the center, the army indicated the reason was a lack of direct funding to continue . the cdc operations also played a key part in the closure decision. i would point out that in fiscal 2019, the army was allocated $326 million for day care. they were so concerned about daycare that for fiscal year 2020, they asked for less money.
andncreased to that request have provided $3$71 million which is significantly more than the previous year. i would then point out that for next year's budget, the army has asked for even less money. it is unconscionable. i also appreciate that mr. womack asked for report language relative to the decision to remove u.s. forces from a multi-force in egypt. he indicated he believes the mistake and i agree and i believe all of the members of the subcommittee agree with mr. womack. the other one is miss mink has asked for language giving the amount of money the department spent on advertising to try and help track how the department utilizes local media. i highlight this because last year the committee had the same request. i would read it.
the committee directs the secretary defense to include in the 2021 budget submission a total expenditures for fiscal year 2019 and 2020 and the requested level of funding for fiscal year 2021 for all contractor advertising services by women and minority owned businesses and contracts for advertising services for socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses. they were to submit that with the budget the first week in february. this is july 14, we have yet to hear a peep from the department of defense. i strongly support the gentlewoman's bill and we would ask for your support. >> ranking member calvert is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. we have no objections to the manager's amendment. we worked closely with the majority and worked out many of
the concerns of our members. >> other any other members heard on the amendment? recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i also want to thank you and the ranking member, and i certainly want to thank the chairman. one of the things we do at this congress is we have the honor to serve with some of the finest men and women, and certainly this committee, we have this. and the chairman of this appropriations committee, i want to say thank you for the work that you and the ranking member have done. the finest men and women in congress, i want to say thank you for adding a couple of things, not only to stem pipelines from minorities to hispanic institutions and other institutions that you added here, but i want to in , particular want to thank you for the language addressing the
sexual assault crisis that we have seen in the military, particularly a want to talk about fort hood what happened when this young lady, vanessa guillen went missing, and the situation that we have there. i was with one group this weekend, military veterans who guillen,pport for ms. and i just want to say that when you look at this particular situation and the really the , epidemic we have of sexual violence and what happens when you look at hispanics that make up about 16% of the active-duty military, and what happened in fort hood and i support the military, but i do have a problem. and i do ask, where was the sergeant, where was the platoon leader, where was the commander in this situation, and what does it take to do this type of work
and other folks took the effort on this. to add to the language you added , i just want to say thank you because this committee will conduct the review of the department's policy for reporting sexual assault and its defectiveness in protecting victims' privacy, ensuring safety and holding offenders accountable. so mr. chairman, i just want to say thank you to you and your staff for working with my staff to put this together to address an issue that we need to address. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. womack is recognized. >> i too thank the chairwoman, and i want to thank the chairman of the committee for including language on multinational enforcement observers in the
manager's amendment. there can be little doubt to anybody the effectiveness the mfo has played in the regional stability in that part of the world. the treaty parties of egypt and israel and the rest of the world have benefited from what transpired from the peace accord of 1979 and the standup of the mfo in 1982. and i would strongly encourage members of this committee to support the fact that any decision made by the administration to withdraw forces out of the sinai peninsula, specifically u.s. forces could indeed be counterproductive to the long-term interests of that region. so again thank you, mr. chairman, for hearing that request and for including it in the manager's amendment. i yield back. >> are there any other members who wish to be heard on the amendment?
the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. , in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is adopted. are there any other amendments? what purpose does the member from california rise? >> madam chairman, i don't have an amendment at this moment. i think mr. diaz had the amendment. >> mr. lee i'm sorry. , mr. lee is recognized. >> i have an amendment at the desk. number >> the clerk will read one. the amendment. >> i offer unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. >> let me thank the chairman and our ranking member for your very
hard work on this bill. let me just take a moment to say thank you to our chairman, and i too want to say to you that i'm going to miss you tremendously. when i think about you and how you will remain in my thoughts, i think of smart, i think of decent, someone with integrity, someone who is honest, and someone who has provided myself much counsel. it has been very wise. and also i want to just thank you for your support on many of the provisions of this bill. also let me just take a moment of personal privilege to say to you, mr. chairman, of course one of my fondest memories was my visit to your district in gary, indiana, and your bringing me a bag of white castle hamburgers. i mean a bag, not just one.
i will always be indebted to you for this. i value our friendship and i really look forward to visiting you again in gary, indiana and getting two bags of white castle this time. thank you very much, you've been a joy to work with over the years, and your leadership and expertise is really going to be missed. madame chair, my amendment is straightforward as i've introduced for several years, and it's received support over the years from both sides of the aisle. in fact three years ago, it passed on a bipartisan basis under a republican majority, and i hope we can do that again today. my amendment would sunset the overly broad 2001 aumf, eight months after enactment of this act. while in place, it gives congress and the administration plenty of time to vote and debate on a new aumf. this amendment is not only timely, it's necessary. from pulling out of the deal to moving carriers to the region
the administration has continued , to issue vague threats of military action and has even floated the idea of the 2001 authorization for the use of military force as a legal basis to go to war with iran. congress cannot allow this to happen, and it's a stark reminder once again that the danger of leaving the 2001 aumf indefinitely on the books could cause another unfortunate war. on september 14, 2001, yes i did vote against the 2001 aumf. it was a authorization that i knew would provide a blank check and wage war anywhere, anytime for any reason. in the last 19 years it's become increasingly clear it has essentially provided the president, any president, the authority to wage war against anyone, any nation, anywhere at any time. madam chair, as our brave servicemen and women are deployed around the world, congress still is missing in action. our failure to vote on the
betrayal of the american people in our constitutional duty. according to a 2018 congressional research service report -- i encourage actually my colleagues to read this report. it has become, and this report lays out 41 times in 19 countries to wage war with little or no congressional oversight. in the 2016 report, it cited 37 times in 15 countries. and this report looks only at unclassified incidents. how many other times has been used without the knowledge of congress or the american people? not only has this authorization been used to justify military actions thousands of miles away, but it's also been used as a legal justification for warrantless surveillance and wiretaps, indefinite detention practices at gitmo including , those of american citizens and the open ended expansion of military operations again. in addition to the activities, i
mentioned above, this aumf has reportedly been invoked to deploy troops in syria, afghanistan, iraq, somalia, niger.libya and right now we know any president can unilaterally wage war under the outdated 2001 authorization without congressional authority. this administration like previous administrations continues to be engaged in a proxy war in yemen despite the passage of bipartisan and bicameral war powers resolution. as i stated earlier it has already been floated earlier the idea from the 2001 aumf as a legal basis to go to war with iran, a war congress has not abated or authorized. this is truly outrageous and dangerous. it is not just our wars under the 2001 aumf. the administration has lost unauthorized strikes against syria without congressional authorization in violation of the constitution.
i know that while we may not share common position on what should replace the 2001 aumf, many of us do agree the overly broad authority is dangerous and concerningor and dangerous deterioration of congressional oversight and warmaking authority. i think many of us can also agree a robust debate and vote is necessary, long overdue and must take place. as your member from three years ago in this committee we voted , in a bipartisan to adopt the same amendment sunsetting the aumf eight months after the bill signed into law. leaving congress plenty of time to debate and vote on a new one. my amendment will not be enacted immediately. our troops will not be exposed. we will have eight months to debate and vote on an appropriate authorization for wars this congress believes important. the 2001 aumf passed within three days. three days is all it took to write a blank check for war and
only about 20% of congress was serving when we took that vote. this is an abdication of congress's responsibility. we need to step up and do our job. so let me be clear. with the 2001 aumf still on the books in its current form, any administration can continue to rely on this like check to rely on -- to wage endless wars. that's why my memo to rivet funding for it after eight months is so important. in the past -- it is far past time to bring almost two decades of nonstop war to an end. spannedver wars have wider and wider across the globe. they have cost us $5 trillion, claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. the war in afghanistan is longest war in american history. with troops fighting a war that was launched before they were born. so enough is enough, please
support this amendment. thank you again. visclosky is recognized. >> appreciate the recognition, i support the gentlewoman's amendment. i think she stated very clearly, it is overly broad. the world has changed in the last 19 years, and some of those 19 countries include not only syria, but yemen, the philippines and other parts of africa. i strongly support the gentlewoman's amendment. >> mr. calvert is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i strongly oppose this amendment to repeal the legal authority used by our armed forces and the -- in the fight against al qaeda and isis. as we know, the 2001 authorization for the use of military force provides authority for the use of military force against al qaeda, the terroristds that planned and committed the 9/11 attacks, as well as the taliban, who provided sanctuary to al qaeda. the executive branch has stated it authorizes all necessary and appropriate force against not only these two terrorist groups,
but also associated forces such as the islamic state, isis, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and al-shabaab in east africa. it is not the united states' interest to repeal this essential counterterrorism authority without having an adequate replacement we know will be signed into law. despite being -- both al qaeda and isis continued to pose serious threat and remain committed to targeting the united states and our interests around the globe. this amendment presumes 240 days is enough days to craft a new aumf. we cannot risk it. repeal and replace would need to be simultaneous. there is vast disagreement on the details and no real-world prospect for meaningful political consensus on these difficult and weighty constitutional matters. to unilaterally repeal the principal legal authority on which our military relies to carry out global counterterrorism operations would be a significant mistake
and deeply harmful to our national security. i strongly urge defeat of the amendment. and i yield back. >> mrs. watson-coleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. first of want to thank congresswoman for her nearly two decades long fight to bring oversight and accountability to the executive use of military force. it is extremely frustrating that we are here yet again having this debate when congress should have long ago listened to congresswoman lee and inserted a constitutional power to determine when and where our nation engages in military conflicts. this is not a partisan issue. no matter who wins the presidential election in november, it is critical that
the 2001 aumf be repealed so we don't continue surrendering our powers to the executive branch. there are many national security challenges around the world, and we have seen repeatedly that presidents have too often relied on military responses to those challenges. the american public has made it clear that they want an end to our forever wars. adopting this would bring us closer to that goal. therefore i urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and i yield back. thank you, madam chair. >> miss granger is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i too strongly oppose this amendment. it would automatically repeal the 2001 authorization for the use of military force just 240 days after the bill was signed into law. our top priorities as election -- elected officials should be protecting the american people. however this amendment would undermine our national security by repealing the authority currently used to combat the continuing terrorist threat against the united states.
the 2001 aumf provides the basis for our military to combat local threats from al qaeda and associated forces such as isis and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and al-shabaab. these groups remain a continuing threat to united states and the safety of the american people. there are a few things more irresponsible than removing a critical legal authority for the u.s. military operations without having an agreement on what will replace it. as former secretary of defense mattis said, the repeal of the aumf would stall our operations, immediately reduce allied commitments and support and create significant opportunities for our enemies to seize the initiative. this amendment is a poison pill and would limited the ability of armed services to keep us safe and i urge, urge a no vote.
>> if there is no -- oh. [laughter] mr. lauro is recognized. >> thank you, very much. i rise in strong support of the amendment put forward by our colleague barbara lee. ,as the congresswoman has stated, the overly broad authorizations for use
of military force after 240 days of the enactment of this act. in doing so, it empowers and encourages the congress to follow its constitutional duty and debate the use of military force. president trump has stretched the aumf to its limits without coming to the congress, coming -- conducting worldwide war. just a few years ago for american soldiers died and when the news broke, it was the first time many mentors of congress or members of the public realized america was at a war in northern africa. the justification, the 2001 aumf .
2018ding to the congressional research service report, the 2001 aumf has become a blank check for war. the united states has deployed troops to syria, afghanistan, iraq, somalia, libya and like i mentioned niger. ,the executive branch
alone should not wage war. the congress cannot stand idly by. matters of war and peace are some of the most fundamental issues facing our nation. congress must make its voice heard. it is our constitutional responsibility to debate the use of military force. closing i urge my colleagues to support congresswoman lee's amendment. we've done so repeatedly and in a bipartisan fashion. let's do it again. our men and women in uniform protect, preserve our freedom and values and way of life.
we owe them so much and we owe them so much more than silence. i yield back. >> mr. cole is recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i want to thank my friend for offering the amendment, and i think it's on the we ought to be talking about. while i oppose this amendment, i think she makes many, many good points. i'm one of the people who do believe the aumf needs to be replaced. i worked with my colleagues including my good friend in california on occasion to do that. i will add for the record, i'm actually strangely more comfortable with this president not using military force than either the last two. if we check the record, he has done more to reduce our presence and been more cautious than either president obama or president bush. that ought to be noted for the record. he is not the problem here. aumf is the problem.
bipartisang with a group of legislators that could get us beyond this. my friend makes a good point. at the end of the day i am persuaded you have to replace this with something. because we do have troops deployed in the area. and it is important they have legal justification and authorization for being there. to say we ought to be able to get it done in 240 days is nice, but the problem is we haven't got it done 18 years. to find we will find a solution, i think it flies in the face of our own hard experience. this is a very difficult thing. but it doesn't change the basic reality that we do need to relook at this particular document. we do need to reclaim our warmaking authority. my friend has been a leader in that, and i look forward to
working with her as we find a way to replace what i think is a flawed authorization that went further in scope than i think any of its authors ever intended in terms of giving away congressional more power to the executive branch, regardless of who the president is. but find a way to recapture it in a way that's responsible and does not jeopardize the lives and safety of american troops that are performing really important tasks. i am again working with another group of members on something like this. i think we will see something. it may or may not be the right way forward but the debate is an , important debate for us to have, and the reclamation of warmaking authority to the congress of the united states is an important thing for us to achieve. it just should not be accomplished by placing american troops in the field at risk and counting on us being able to come up with an appropriate
authorization in 240 days when we haven't been able to do it so far 19 years. with that, madam chair, again i , applaud my friend, but i don't support the resolution and yield back my time. >> the chair has a personal plea. i know the masks get uncomfortable, but i need all of you to wear them over your nose and mouth. as chair, it is my responsibility to keep you and the staff safe. if you remove masks to speak, please put them back on. if there is no further debate, the member from california is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close. >> thank you very much. i want to thank all the members who spoke supporting the amendment and those who don't support the amendment. let me just say one thing.
first of all as the daughter of a career military officer, i would never propose any amendment, any legislation with -- that would put the lives and safety of american troops in jeopardy. secondly the authorization to use military force was written and passed in three days. three days. thirdly, congress has been missing in action for 19 years , and eight months is plenty of time for this body to come up with a new authorization based upon what we believe constitutes the use of military force. while we may not agree on what the 2001 aumf replacement should look like many of us do agree , any replacement should include the scope, size, objective and duration of any military operation.
in fact the house adopted language last summer outlined ing what boundaries of time, scope and geography should be to -- should be attached to any new aumf. it's time we sunset and repeal this and put congress back into ensuring that we do our job because we certainly have not. in 19 years, we totally missing in action. i asked for an aye vote. >> the question on the amendment offered by the member from california. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> no. >> madam chair i ask for , recorded vote. a recorded [video clip] vote -- >> a recorded vote is requested. >> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted.
[no speaking] >> on this vote, the yeas are 30, the nays are 22, the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the member from florida rise? [indiscernible] >> on the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> i would ask unanimous consent the reading be dispensed with. >> the reading of the amendment
is dispensed with. >> madam chairwoman -- >> you may start. >> let me also add my words of respect and praise to the chairman. mr. chairman you mentioned you are an appropriator. i would tell you you're more than that, you are -- all of us who had the privilege of working with you would do well to try and emulate and follow, you are a gentleman. i thank you for your service to your country and your loss here is the loss to the country. you will be moving on to do other things. thank you for your service. madam chairman i'm offering this , to add several provisions to the bill related to our facility at guantanamo bay, cuba. my amendment would restore more provisions on guantanamo that have been standard provisions in this bill for many years. bipartisan provisions which were not included in this.
this would put a limitation on the transfer of remaining detainees at guantanamo bay to the foreign country or to use the department of defense funds or domestic u.s. facility or imprisonment of guantanamo detainees. or again to carry out the closure or realignment of the facility. so even under the last president -- even though the last president pledged to close the detention center, congress in a bipartisan way resisted those plans. today only 40 terrorists remain in gitmo, but they are the worst of the worst, my friends and , that's why this president has signed an executive order reversing the previous president's executive order issued in 2009 to try and close down that military prison. now the executive order notes a number of the remaining individuals at the facility are being prosecuted in military commission while others must be detained to protect against
continuing significant threats to the security of the united states. in addition, because some of the current detainee population represents the most difficult and dangerous cases, but among those historically there, there is a significant reason for concern regarding their re-engagement in hostilities should they again have the opportunity. in fact my understanding, and i don't think anyone will doubt is -- doubt or correct me on this, is that of those previously released, over 200 individuals resumed their hostility, their terrorist career. group of individuals, this dangerous group of individuals that was there, and i would ask for your favorable consideration.
and with that, i yield back. >> chair this gorski is recognized. >> i appreciate the gentleman's kind words and can't believe he would offer an amendment to the bill. [laughter] >> but reluctantly would express my opposition. heas simply note that as rightfully points out, the bill is silent on the issues that a are very important to him. i would point out the trump administration was silent on this issue because they did not request that the committee include these provisions. and except for the request and amendment offered by the gentleman today, in markup of this legislation, we received no written request from any member of the house to include this language in the bill. i would also point out that the trump administration has not requested a move of the detainees or suggested they will shut down the prison. the committee has no indication
that the administration wants to or plans to do anything about these amendments to seek to stop. the committee does fund the prison, and we do have asked for report language seeking to bring down the extraordinary costs in future years. each participant in guantanamo, each of those 40 individuals are costing the american taxpayers about $10 million per year. so the gentleman is correct it , is a security issue, but there is a monetary issue here as well. so i would ask opposition to the gentleman's amendment. >> mr. calvert is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i strongly support the amendment. chairman, chairwoman, ranking member carter and i have traveled to naval station guantanamo bay earlier this year and we saw firsthand some of the
challenges there and heard from the admiral and his staff, reviewing our base size and the number of personnel serving there. the detention facility there opened in 2002 to hold detainees affiliated with al qaeda and the taliban. but now it only holds 40 remaining hard-core terrorists. charged in connection with the september 11 terrorist attacks and the october 2000 strike on the destroyer uss cole. i realize the administration did not request these general provisions be included in the bill. it did so not because it opposes the language, but because all departments of defense under every administration resists congressional limitations and reflexively seek maximum flexibility. in fact president trump issued an executive order in 2018 reversing the prior administration's efforts to end u.s. detention operations and close guantanamo bay facility. as reflected in the
long-standing provisions, my friend from florida seeks to put back in the bill, the executive order recognizes the inherent dangers associated with potentially putting enemy combatants back on the battlefield to threaten our forces by transferring them abroad. as the executive order states, given that some of the current detainee population represent the most difficult and dangerous cases from among those historically detained at the facility, there is significant reason for concern regarding their re-engagement in hostilities should they have the opportunity. -- i don't think many of our friends on the others actually want the executive branch to transfer any of the remaining terrorists, the worst of the worst, to a foreign country where they could potentially escape and again threaten homeland security. likewise i doubt many of our constituents support the transfer of detainees like khalid sheikh mohammed to a prison or other facility here in the united states. in that context i would
respectfully suggest it doesn't make sense for this commander -- this committee to give a blank check to the executive branch regarding the transfer of those remaining hard-core guantanamo terrorists or close the facility there which is why the limitations are reflected a consensus of congressional policy for nearly a decade and why a strongly support the amendment. >> ms. wasserman schultz is recognized. >> while have i have the utmost affection, i do oppose the amendment. it bears repeating that the president not only excluded this language from his proposed budget for the last two fiscal years, he affirmatively dropped it two fiscal years ago and we should continue that practice.
given what we know about the cost and efficacy of remaining in guantanamo bay, we should see it closed. the military prison was set up nearly 20 years ago and was envisioned to be a temporary holding facility. it serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists and endangers our troops serving on foreign soil. the very existence poses a significant challenge to the human rights and due protection they give us influence abroad. the cost of the facility is not only a deficit to our national security, according to the not new york times, it costs $30,000 per prisoner a year to keep. it resulted in deserved convictions for accused terrorists. our system of justice works effectively.
it is somewhat ludicrous to hear a suggestion that if they were transferred to the mainland and tried here in the united states, we would risk their escape. it should be utilized to prosecute heinous murders to the fullest extent of the law and we should show, as we repeatedly have, that it works. we should close the most expensive detention program and make the united states and more just nation at the same time. i yield back. >> ms. granger is recognized. >> thank you. i strongly support the amendment . the remaining 40 detainees held at guantanamo bay are the worst of the worst. they are more dangerous than most people can comprehend, they are pure evil, cannot be rehabilitated, and can never be released. there is every reason to believe these detainees would reengage in executing attacks against the
united states and our allies if they had the opportunity. i find it difficult to believe that any of us support the transfer of dangerous detainees such as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to a facility in the united states. the provisions this would add to the bill are not new. two of them were in the house first last year and all for where in the bill signed into law by the president. these provisions are too important to national security to just allow them to fall away. i strongly support the amendment and urge adoption. >> if there is no further debate, the member from florida -- >> dr. harris seeks recognition. >> dr. harris is recognized. >> thank you. i find it interesting the arguments against it is that this administration has not requested it or does not intend
to pursue this policy for getting there is an election coming up. this bill, and these amendments, would be enforced by different administrations possibly. should we allow guantanamo bay to close or not and to use an argument that could vanish in four months, again, negates the fact there could be an administration coming in and on the first day say, we are closing guantanamo bay. congress has the opportunity right now to take a position on that. i think the gentleman from florida is correct. congress should continue the position it has taken regardless of the administration's stance because the majority of
americans, i do not think, what these people in their backyard. i yield back. >> if there is no further debate, the member from florida is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. let me quote the director of national intelligence. "some detainees at gitmo will seek to reengage in insurgent activity after they are transferred. transfers to countries with ongoing conflict, as well as recruitment by insurgent and terrorist organizations, could pose an increased risk of engagement." there is no reason, no compelling reason to not put this language in there that has been there for a long time when there is no other plan. this is to keep the american people safe. this is language that has been there before and we should put their one more time.
>> the question is on the amendment offered by the member from florida. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> no. >> i ask for a roll call vote. >> a roll call vote has been requested. all those in favor? sufficient number being in support, a recorded vote is ordered. the clerk will call the vote. [voting roll call]
>> on this vote, the ayes 24, the nays 28. the amendment is not adopted. what purpose does the member from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> i ask for unanimous consent to discuss with the reading. -- dispense with the reading. >> without objection the reading is dispensed with. the member from california is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. >> thank you. this amendment, once again, is simple. it would terminate the outdated, but still dangerous,
2002 authorization for the use of military force. i say outdated because the 2002 amendment no longer serves operational purpose. the u.s. military deployment and operations carried out under the 2002 iraqi freedom bill officially concluded in 2011. i say dangerous because the 2002 contains no sunset provisions, leaving this authorization on the books and allows presidents to use it for military action congress never intended to authorize. something we have already seen from prior administrations and this administration. we need to send a clear message the president must seek specific authorization from congress for any use of force against iran or any country. the claim we heard earlier this year from the president, that the 2002 aumf can authorize attacks against iran, has no
basis in reality. underscoring the need to take action to repeal this language. the house has voted twice to repeal aumf. we cannot afford to leave outdated aumf in place definitely. it is past time for congress to do our constitutional duty and exercise congressional responsibility and vote on matters of war and peace. i ask for an aye vote. >> mr. visclosky. >> i support the amendment as she pointed out in her remarks. in october 2011, president obama confirmed all u.s. combat troops would withdraw from iraq after negotiations. nevertheless, nine years later the authorization, despite the secession of hostilities, continues to be used. it is time for the repeal. i support the gentlewoman's amendment.
>> mr. calvert is recognized. >> i strongly oppose this amendment. although the threat posed by saddam hussein's regime was the initial focus of the act, the united states has relied on this aumf to authorize use of force to support a stable, democratic iraq and address militia groups and terrorists after the fall of saddam hussein. although the physical caliphate of isis has been destroyed the organization remains a threat and the u.s. forces remain in country to support the enduring defeat of isis. in addition, iran has remained a malign presence and during the pro-iraniand
militia to attack and kill u.s. troops. according to general mackenzie since may 2009 they have attacked diplomatic targets dozens of times. including a seizure of the embassy in baghdad. they conducted scores of unmanned aerial system reconnaissance flights near u.s. and iraqi security forces. this enables us to protect our servicemen and women in iraq not only through self-defense, but through pursuit of terrorists that should not be repealed without being simultaneously replaced by an updated authority. at the pentagon's general counsel reminds us use of force under the 2002 aumf was not solely addressed at saddam hussein, but threats to the united states posed by militia, terrorist groups, and other armed groups in iraq. the obama administration invoked
the 2002 and 2001 aumfs for military operations against iraq and syria. repealing the 2002 aumf with no replacement would only embolden iran and support ambitions in iraq, and undercut efforts by our military and the president to safeguard our national security. there may be a case to update the 2002 aumf this seems to be more about partisan point scoring. i therefore oppose this amendment and urges defeat. -- urge its defeat. i yield back. >> mr. quigley is recognized. >> i think the simplest response to those who who respectfully
say we have nothing to replace these is we never do anything here unless we are absolutely, positively forced to do it. in, what, 18 or 19 years we have not done it with most of these? i think this amendment makes sense because, hopefully, it will force us to finally face this issue and do something that we should have done a long time ago. thank you. >> miss granger is recognized. >> i strongly oppose the amendment. this amendment was repealed in 2002 aumf in iraq which has helped protect military servicemembers. iran has routinely used militia to attack u.s. forces, killing hundreds of servicemembers, troops repeatedly in recent months.
we should not repeal this authority unless we agree a new aumf that will allow us to combat them effectively. repealing the 2002 aumf will send the wrong symbol to iraq. -- signal to iran and its proxy forces in iraq. it will undercut the efforts of the administration to keep america safe. it may be time for a serious bipartisan discussion about modernizing the aumf. it is not likely to occur this year. i strongly oppose the amendment. >> if there is no further debate, the member from california is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close. >> thank you, madam chair. this is not about scoring any partisan points. the war in iraq officially ended in 2011.
the war in iran was based on the notion there were weapons of mass destruction, which of course, we knew were not there. this congress authorized it anyway. when you talk about a replacement for the iraq resolution, for a war against iraq, a replacement should be debated and updated based on the wars this congress believes are authorized or should be authorized. we need to assert our article i responsibility to define how and when our country goes to war. we have been to war with iraq. that is what the 2002 authorization authorized. for the life of me, it does not make any sense to continue to
keep this authorization on the books. it is over. it concluded in 2011. it was called operation iraqi freedom. i asked for am aye vote. >> i want to remind members before i continue that we will break for food at 1:00. the question is on the amendment authored by the member from california. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> no. >> the ayes have it and at amendment is adopted. what purpose does the member from maryland rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment.
>> i move to waive the reading. >> without objection the reading is dispensed with. the member from maryland is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. >> thank you, madam chair. this amendment, part of it, is similar to last year, but the situation has changed greatly and needs to be expressed again. you know, the problem is a lot of drugs move across our southern border and an article in the los angeles times, subsequent to the last time we discussed this, said "traffickers embrace fentanyl." if you look at the statistics it says, it says 2018 and it has gotten worse, more than 31,000
died after taking fentanyl or a close chemical relative according to the cdc. no other drug in modern history has killed more people in a year. we are talking about fentanyl. fentanyl started appearing on u.s. streets in significant quantities in 2013. most produced in china and shipped in the mail. but then, officials say -- this is almost a year ago today -- the majority is smuggled from mexico where it is remaking the drug trade as traffickers embrace it over heroin which is more difficult and expensive to produce. if you talk about profitability, it cost $32,000 to produce one kilogram of fentanyl and that 2.2 pounds can manufacture one million pills with a street value of $20 million.
this drug trade has to be stopped. it is killing tens of thousands of americans and most of it comes from mexico. the amendment does two things. strikes section 8134 and 8136. when i spoke on the gentleman from florida's amendment, we are discussing a fiscal year constraint. not just president trump. it could be a different president after january, and i question why we would want to tie the next administration's hands with 8134 and 8136. 8134 does not just prohibit a wall, it prohibits any funds on border security infrastructure. border security infrastructure
could include roads or lights or things at the port of entry -- anywhere along the southern border. the gentleman from texas made the point that fentanyl crosses the ports of entry. 8134 says the dod cannot do anything at a port of entry. not only this administration, but a future administration because eight months of this bill will pertain to the next administration. 8136 says you cannot use the national guard on the border. it does not say for immigration purposes. it just says you cannot use them. that means you cannot use them for drug interdiction at the border. why in the world, when we are in the midst of a horrendous fentanyl epidemic, why would we want to tie anyone's hands on drug addiction?
some people do not like this president. i get it, but this bill may not pertain just to this president. that president coming into office could say, i do care about the fentanyl issue and may be by then, the passage across the border has gotten worse in the president says, i am going to throw everything at it. i am going to do border infrastructure. i do not believe in walls, but i believe in lights and roads. i believe the national interest is benefited by putting national guard on that border to stop every single milligram of fentanyl from crossing the border because it is so profitable and so deadly. sections 8134 and 8136 high the -- tie the president's hands to fight a war on drugs by whatever means they feel is necessary.
i would urge the committee to seriously consider removing section 8134 and 8136. they are too broadly written, they go far beyond the wall, and could impede our ability to stop the war on fentanyl. i yield back. >> mr. visclosky. >> i appreciate the sentiment and could not disagree we have a drug problem in the united states of america. however, i am opposed to the amendment for several reasons. one, if congress voted to use defense money to build a wall any place, that would be a unconstitutional act. article one section nine says no money shall be drawn from the
treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. the fact is after those laws were signed by the president of the united states twice this administration, i believe, illegally transfer those funds that were not enumerated by congress for a wall. there was a federal appeals court that ruled last month the administration did not have that authority. there is nothing in this bill that prohibits the administration from building a wall any place. what we are saying is you cannot use dedicated defense dollars to do so. the gentleman also indicates the
guard cannot be deployed to the border. we say in the bill that you have to reimburse the guard if they are deployed and that is a long-standing tradition. if the guard is deployed in a national emergency, under fema for example, they are reimbursed. under covid they are reimbursed. they should be reimbursed if they are deployed to the border. that is all we are saying. we have dedicated defense dollars that should not be used for unintended purposes and i would oppose the amendment. >> mr. calvert is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i strongly support the amendment which would strike 8134 and 8136. i have the greatest respect for the chairman. he is a great leader in crafting the bill, but i disagree on 8134 and 8136 which prohibit the use of funds to construct a wall, fence, border, barrier, or infrastructure along the southern border and limit the department ability to provide assistance to other agencies and drug smuggling corridors along the border.
>> i speak against the amendment. with all due respect to my friend from maryland, let a give you some of the reasons why. i live at the border. i do not just visit. i am familiar with the situation down there and what we are seeing. again, i want to emphasize that last week the president of mexico was at the white house, and we know with the president had promised. we are going to build this well and have mexico pay for the wall. i did not hear the spanish word for "where's the check? " from the mexican president. i believe in private property rights, and i want to make sure
we understand the facts here. first, we have had a wall that even the wind knocked down. i think it was in central california, madam chair, an agent said the wall had not been set correctly. there are issues with the wall itself. let me give you the facts on two things. let me first talk about how people come across and then i will talk about the drugs. if you look at how people come across, for the last 10 years, the primary mode of entry of the undocumented population into the united states have been visa over stays. if you look at this, you will see dhs numbers from 2016 to
2017, the people who overstayed accounted for 62% of the newly undocumented immigrants. they are not totally coming across the river. they are coming through visa over stays, and the number one violators are from canada. i'm not quoting a newspaper but the official numbers from ccp. looking at what comes in between ports of entry, what comes through the port of entry. if you look at the drugs that have come in you will see in fy 2019, 85% of the cocaine they
came into the states came through ports of entry. if you look at the heroin, 84% came through ports of entry. if you look at what you have been emphasizing, 95% came through ports of entry. -- 92% came through ports of entry. 92% has been coming through ports of entry. 92% as come in. when you look at meth, 81% has come through ports of entry.
yes, i want to make sure we have law and order at the border, but you are looking at fbi statistics and i could pick almost any city in maryland and tell you that the border cities are safer than almost any city in maryland. i can venture that safely. i want to make sure we have law and order at the border. i want to make sure we stop the drugs, but if we are going to put resources -- and we will have a chance tomorrow -- that we put it where it belongs. 92% of the fentanyl coming into the united states comes through ports of entry. again, with all due respect to my friend from maryland, those are the facts. we need to make sure we do this correctly. i want to make sure we stop drugs from coming in, but let us do it in the right way.
i oppose, with all due respect, the amendment. >> ms. granger is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i strongly support the amendment. the appropriations bills we are considering must be enacted into law. as i said before, i have been to the border countless times and seen firsthand the important impact the wall is having. if members are focused on securing our border and not political messaging, i think we can all agree on what has been accomplished. as of last week, 229 miles of new border wall system have been completed. customs and border protection officials have confirmed that the wall stops most border crossings in areas where it is built. it is also dramatically slowing down those who attempt to get around it, allowing agents more
time to respond. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. >> ms. herrera-butler is recognized. >> thank you. everybody here probably has a lock on their door if not a fence, and we lock it to protect -- to choose who comes and goes. i do not understand any objection to construction of a wall or fence or boundary barrier. i definitely support the amendment and i would like to yield the rest of my time to dr. harris. >> dr. harris is recognized. >> i think the gentlelady for yielding. i do not think a minute is enough to address this. the gentleman from texas missed my point. it is not about a wall. it is the clear reading of the
language of 8134 and 8136, for instance, affect ports of entry. it is clear reading. it says, border security infrastructure along the southern border. those ports of entry, correct me if i'm wrong, are on the southern border. 8136 says, no funds available to use members of the armed forces in support of security for immigration. that includes ports of entry. my argument is that those who are fixated on stopping this in administration from building a wall should have left it at that. it didn't. this language is far broader than that. it affects any ability -- remember the chairman of the subcommittee did not mention 10
usc284 sets up the dod as one of the drug enforcement agents of the united states. under congressional authority the dod can spend money to stop drugs. the problem is section 8134 and authority as that well, not only building a wall, but the authority to spend money. it is a bridge too far. i understand 92% comes through ports of entry. why would you want to tie the hands of the department of defense to help on the war on drugs? i agree. this is a horrendous war. we can mention methamphetamine or whatever, but mexico are the leading source of fentanyl.
fentanyl killed 31,000 people two years ago and maybe 40,000 this year because of covid. it comes across that border. i understand the zeal in stopping this president from building a wall, but why would you tie the hands on other means of drug interdiction and more importantly, the next president potentially? this bill extends through the entire fiscal year. i yield back. >> miss wasserman-schultz is recognized. >> thank you. this as subscribed and they are important for holdings and administration accountable and using our military and responsible way.
the president has siphoned billions of dollars from the military to attempt to build the border wall and these were appropriated for uses that were requested by the military services. enough is enough. as an appropriator i am tired of this president moving funds around as he sees fit, ignoring the article one branch of government. we cannot let the executive branch usurp our protected authority overspending taxpayer dollars. it is time to reassert authority and to get back from a rampant executive that is run amok. if not, we will look back and regret it. it would also strike 8136 which would prohibit armed forces from serving on active duty in support of immigration enforcement. unless the secretary of defense enters an agreement with the requesting agency to reimburse
cost incurred by dod. i do not believe we should be militarizing our border. i believe our troops time, effort, and resources could be better spent elsewhere because they are needed for true military purposes. guarding a border with mexico is not. we have a border patrol that is responsible, by definition, for that purpose and we get into dangerous territory when we allow them to use the military for law enforcement or in pursuit of a politically motivated stunt that is only meant to excite the president's xenophobic state. there is no emergency on the southern border and no need for troops. dod should be reimbursed for the help it provides for the homeland security which does not occur now. these provisions should not be stricken from the bill and i encourage the committee to vote against it. i yield back. >> if there is no further debate, the member from maryland is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close.
>> thank you. i will be brief. there is an emergency on the southern border. fentanyl is flowing across it and killing tens of thousands of americans every single year. if that is not an emergency, i do not know what is. i do not understand why 8136 and 8134 were not drafted more narrowly to prevent only wall funding, not to prevent spending on drug interdiction at the southern border either through border security infrastructure in 8134 or with the use of national guard, if necessary, under 8136. i yield back. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the member from maryland. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. >> no.
>> the amendment is not adopted. for what reason does the member from illinois rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the attempt to increase funding a conference, i want to thank mr. visclosky and majority and minority staff working with me toward that end and provided the commitment to work on this as we move forward through the process. chairman visclosky, they have said wonderful things about you based on you being from indiana. once a hoosier, always a hoosier and i was born there as well.
thank you for your service. yesterday, representative fortenberry talked about als. he has been a bipartisan partner and continues his efforts. many of my fellow appropriators are members of the als caucus, the bill before us today includes funding for many important congressionally directed medical research. i support this, however, the als line has been historically underfunded for decades despite als disproportionately impacting our military and veteran communities. last year we worked with the chair and under his leadership were able to double the research
funding from $10 million to $20 million. we are very grateful for that increase. considering context, $20 million to help cure als is simply not enough. while i was eager to double this budget adding $20 million in an effort for more parity across research communities, the amendment would increase funding by $5 million. the current als program at dod has laid out a strategic plan that is working exceptionally well and has worthy research that can support funding for up to $40 million. the program is bridging basic research and clinical trials that support the war fighter and additional funding that would help them move toward trials. i think the chairwoman and
ranking member for their willingness to work with me, to secure additional funding. at this time i would like to withdraw my amendment. gentleman,the withdrawing the amendment. if there is no further debate, the amendment is withdrawn. my friends, we are recessing for lunch. please be back at 2:00. thank you. [indistinct chatter]
member from california rise? >> thank you, madam chair. i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> amendment number three, and i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. this am and is straightforward, it would block the president from starting a expressedran absent authorization from congress. this consists of language the house has adopted as part of hr550 in january of this year. this amendment would not prohibit the president from using the authority he currently has under article two of the constitution to respond to any attack on the united states or are allies -- our allies.
it simply makes it clear the president cannot go to war with iran without expressed authorization from congress. we know the trump administration has taken clear steps to escalate tensions with iran in an attempt to build up an unconstitutional and unauthorized war. this administration has pulled out of the joint comprehensive plan of action, the jcpoa despite the fact the remainder of our european partners stated they would remain emitted to it, and iran was complying with the deal. the administration floated using the 2001 a umf as a legal basis for military action in iran. former state department labeled this as ridiculous. this playbook is very clear. we have been down this road on iraq. we cannot afford to make the same mistake again. we do not all agree on how to
manage the united states relationship with iran, and we have a lot of work to do to ensure the united states pursues comprehensive diplomatic solutions to address the issues we have their. we should agree we should not send a signal that the president or any president must come to congress to ensure the full congress receives all of the information they need to make and inform the decision. and the president comes to congress to seek expressed authorization in accordance with the constitution. madam chair, i ask for an aye vote, and i hope we can get a bipartisan vote on this. >> thank you very much. i support the amendment, as she pointed it out, it would prohibit military force against iran unless congress has authorized such force in line
with the war powers resolution. is a state sponsor of terrorism, and threatens our interests in the region and israel. having said that, any decision to commit our forces against iran should not be taken lightly , and must involve congress. i ask for your support of the amendment. >> mr. calvert is recognized. >> i strongly oppose this amendment, it appears to be based on the no war against iran act, which the house voted on several times in recent months, which has no chance of becoming law. this language would block funding for any use of military force in or against iran unless congress has declared war. i cannot imagine a more counterproductive restriction on this or any other president.
just to remind my colleagues, there is no country more hostile to the interests of the united states and our allies, especially israel, than iran. there should be zero ambiguity about the right of the united states to defend itself and its allies from iranian hostile acts. these hostile acts include dozens of attacks against americans in iraq, attacking the u.s. embassy, attacking commercial shipping in the gulf, providing legal aid for stabilizing groups in the region, including those inning to attack israel. and ultimately launching more than a dozen ballistic missiles in a deliberate attack against u.s. and coalition forces in iraq. not all my colleagues on the other side would agree, but our response to this iranian come of a on general solemani proved
deterrence. this provision undermines that enhanced deterrence by calling into question the ability and will of the united states to defend our partners and national interests. this amendment impermissibly and unwisely tries to tie the president's hands on iran, emboldens our adversary, and creates dangerous doubt about the american power and purpose in the middle east. i oppose this amendment, and i urge its defeat. >> mr. price is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i rise in strong support of this amendment. we have every reason to take cautionary pressures to of ensure president trump comes to congress before taking offensive military action. president trump recklessly upended and educate diplomatic
achievement to prevent a nuclear iran, the jcpoa. he had nothing to replace it. he had no diplomatic path. the administration then launched an ill defined maximum pressure campaign and assassinated the head of the force, general soleimani that took us to the rink of war. it could happen again. the house voted for congressional approval for military action in iran, and we should reaffirm that through this amendment today. to a colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued, this is not about whether iran is a good or bad actor, we know the answer. it is a matter of asserting the constitutional power of the article one branch of government , it is about that.
it is also a matter of reining in the extremely provocative and dangerous policies of this administration toward iran. i urge a yes vote. >> ms. granger is recognized. madam chair, i strongly oppose this dangerous and highly partisan amendment. this measure would tie the hands of the president, undermining our national security and service members. has a long and bloody history of attacking u.s. and coalition forces directly and indirectly. the iranian regime remains the greatest threat to security in the middle east. iran continues to destabilize iraq, they are jeopardizing our partnership with by baghdad by using militias and violence to achieve their political agenda. this amendment what prevent the president from responding to new attacks on u.s. and coalition
partners, on commercial shipping in the persian gulf. i am deeply concerned this amendment would make conflict more and not less likely for the united states and our partners in the middle east, including a great ally, israel. , it wasthese reasons debated by the house earlier this year. i oppose the amendment for the safety and security of this country and our allies, and i urge its defeat. i yield back. >> mr. cole. >> thank you very much. i strongly oppose this amendment. andhould take a minute review the facts. we are told the president did something wrong pulling out of the iranian nuclear deal. it was a terrible deal, so bad it was not put before congress. there are people on both sides
of the aisle that opposed that deal. the majority of the house and senate opposed it. if you think it was a great deal, i beg to differ. we are told the iranians are keeping the deal, no kidding. it allows them to work toward acquiring nuclear weapons. they got $150 billion out of the deal. theirically improved position. it was a bad deal for the united states. the president said he would pull us out of the deal when he was running for office. this was not a mystery. for those of you who think president trump is likely to lead us to war with iran, i invite you to look at what has happened on his watch, how iranians have responded. we had a drone shot down by the iranians, and mr. trump's pentagon urged him to strike
iran. he thought about it and did not do it. saudi arabia was attacked either iranians, that would have been an excuse to attack. president trump sent missile defense forces to help. we had ships attacked, that would have been a good excuse to attack. he put together a naval task force to defend the troops. we had u.s. soldiers attacked by iranians in iraq. did the president respond with an attack? no. he attacked the iranian proxies in iraq. only when we finally had a threat against the american embassy did he act. did he act by attacking iran? no. he took out a known terrorist, general solemani, who had killed hundreds of american troops, who was in the region orchestrating other forces to attack us. that is not the pattern of
somebody who wants a war with iran. maximum pressure, absolutely. this is a regime that deserves -- a leading sponsor of state terrorism in the world, in the world. it has killed hundreds of american soldiers. so, if the president wants to play tough against the people like that, i think it is the appropriate thing to do. i think this amendment would send the wrong message at the wrong time to a very dangerous enemy of the united states. so, for that reason, i urge its rejection. chair lowey: if there is no further debate, the member from california is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close. >> thank you, madam chair. let me just say, there are three branches of government and the constitution requires restrictions on the president. once again, under article two, the constitution allows the president to respond to any attack on the united states or our allies.
so, these arguments opposing this amendment are not making the point. the point is what we are doing is ensuring that we exercise our constitutional responsibility when it comes to congress, based on the restriction, based on what the founders wanted, and based on what our constitutional responsibilities are and that is to come to congress, any president, to seek express authorization for any military authorization. and, it only makes sense for us to do our jobs, i would think, if in fact we want to continue to be a branch of government that does have oversight responsibility over the executive branch. the president can play tough, any president can. they have the authority under the constitution to do what's necessary in defense of our country or our allies. this is about us doing our job.
chair, andyou, madam i ask for an aye vote. chair lowey: the question is on the amendment offered by the member from california. all those in favor, say aye. >> aye. chair lowey: those opposed say no. >> no. chair lowey: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> roll call, madame chairman. chair lowey: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. >> roll call vote, please. chair lowey: all those in favor, record a vote. raise your hand. the sufficient number being in support. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. aguilar, aye.
mr. bishop? mr. bishop, aye. misses bustos? mrs. bustos, aye. mr. calvert, no. mr. carter, no. mr. cartwright? mr. cartwright, aye. mr. case, aye. ms. clark? ms. clark, aye. mr. cole, no. mr. crist, aye. ms. delauro, aye. mr. fleischman, no. mr. fortenberry? mr. fortenberry, no. ms. frankel? ms. frankel, aye. ms. granger, no. dr. harris? dr. harris, no. mr. heard? mr. heard, no. mr. joyce? joyce, no. ms. kellner? the screw patrick?
>> on this vote, the amendment is adopted. the member from maryland rise? desk, amendment at the harris amendment number two. i would ask the reading be dispensed with. chair lowey: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. member from maryland is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. amendment is an amendment the committee has seen last year also, but is still important. it is very simple. tricare spends billions of dollars out of the dod budget.
have certaint to quality standards. what this does is require hospitals to certify policies in case of abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive. there would have to be policies that infant would be taken care of and resuscitated. it is very simple. it is different from the child born alive act. there are no criminal penalties. it is just if you want to receive tricare money, you have to have this policy in place. there are dozens, perhaps many more, of policies these hospitals have to have in place that indicate quality. it is not overly burdensome. the argument will be made this never occurs, but over the period of 2005 to 2014, the cdc identified 143 such cases in the united states. that might even be an underestimate.
to makea simple way sure quality measures would be in place at hospitals that request and would receive tricare funds. it is particularly important because this decision came to light when the governor of the neighboring state talked about this, the possibility of an infant born alive after attempted abortion, said, quote, if the mother is in labor, i can tell you what would happen. the infant will be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated that is what the family desired. discussion would ensue between the family and the mother. the born alive infant protection act of 2002 clearly identified anyone after birth to be a human being, a child, worthy of protections under the law. passed the senate.
hopefully there is no discussion about whether that is appropriate. aliven being born qualifies as an individual with protection under the law. all this does is says that health care facility has to offer that individual protections including resuscitation and care following birth. i move for the amendment and you'll back -- yield back. >> madam chair, i am opposed to the amendment. the born alive infant protection act of 2002 was signed into law and extended legal protections to all infants regardless of their stage of development or the circumstances of their birth. the amendment is redundant and i'm opposed to it. >> i support the amendment. it seeks simply to protect a baby born alive after an abortion and to ensure that every hospital care and protection is provided.
we must have the humanity to protect infants outside of the ,omb and have the courage especially at its most vulnerable to, to protect life. i urge a yes vote. >> i strongly support the gentlemen's amendment. we have a responsibility to protect life. babies born alive after an abortion. this is to make sure everything possible is done to preserve the life of the child. i urge a yes vote. >> miss butler is recognized. urgejust wanted to adoption of this amendment. there are babies who are born alive during an abortion. while state laws prohibit homicide, they cannot clarify what a doctor is expected to do in that circumstance. the hope here is that there is some guidance so that if this
happens, which i am sure is very distressing, that there is some guidance for how they take care of and make sure that baby is given the same medical care any other baby of that gestational ae would be offered in hospital setting. there is language that talks about care. it is making sure there is equality under the law. for those who are not paying attention in this issue, again, there are government articles. the cdc did a 2003 to 2014 study. my colleague mentioned at least 143 babies were born alive and subsequent died after an attempted abortion. there is an article that talks about it being an everyday occurrence. in 201710 report babies born alive after abortion.
canada reports 491 between 2000 and 2009. there is evidence babies born alive are being killed or neglected after the fact. int should concern everybody this room whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. if a baby is born alive after an abortion, they deserve constitutionally the same exact protection under the law that any other baby is equal to. this is a very difficult issue. in 2017 while answering questions about whether there were standard procedures for verifying if a baby was born alive and what happens after the taylor, a provider in arizona and california, would answer the question directly and later observed it depended who was in the room. it troublings find -- employees testified the
doctor they worked for in texas actively killed a babies born alive during an abortion. that should terrify every single one of us. whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. you cannot argue with this. a planned parenthood representative testified in 2013 that even if a baby was born alive, the decision on what to do with the newborn should they survive would be left up to the mother and the doctor. while planned parenthood later issued a statement in response to the outrage generated by the original comment, that they would provide care to the infant, it does not make the first statement obsolete. this happens on our watch. it happens among us. this amendment is basically taking that step where there are federal dollars involved to tricare beneficiaries that if that occurs, those kids who were born alive needing medical care will have access to it. i urge every person in this room
to take a moment, whether you not, recognize the truth is that it does happen and we have a responsibility to provide guidance. so it is not on a doctors conscience or god forbid, an assistant in the room that we have taken those steps to make sure equal protection under the law is provided. we talk a lot about what types of kids are going through these instances. fore's a lot of defense women of color to have access. if those babies are born alive, regardless of their color or station in life they deserve this act. equal treatment under the law. i yield back. >> ms. franco. >> thank you, madam chair. here we go again. i will acknowledge my republican colleagues for their persistence and zeal blocking access to
legal abortion. every which way they can. if you can't get in the front door, you get in through the back door. find a window. if the window won't open, climb down the chimney. now you are stuck in the chimney. this amendment fabricates a problem that does not exist. the law is already on the books that all health care providers have an obligation to provide appropriate medical care. it is obvious the motive behind this amendment is to scare health care providers, put them forear of losing funding providing safe, legal abortions to their patients. this amendment is another symbol of the trump-pentz administration which has since day one aggressively targeted the help, rights, and bodily autonomy of women. women are in charge of our own reproductive destiny.
not the president, not the vice president. not any member of congress. i oppose this amendment and i yield. >> ms. dilauro six recommend -- six record nation -- seeks recognition. >> i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. to insert the so-called born be veryt -- i will blunt because this is an issue i feel with so much conviction, this is a ruse to ban safe and legal abortion in the united states. becausendment is a ruse the title is a fiction. that a woman could have an abortion as she gives birth, is flat-out untrue. it is not how medicine works.
if a woman is in labor, she could not and would not have an abortion. that suggestion is not only false, it is callous. that those who support this amendment -- where is your feeling about the deep withction that women have child rearing? -- what do you know about that sacred bond between a mother and a child? you should know that. this amendment is not only degrading to women. it is demeaning. abortions that occur after the first three months of her pregnancy account for only around 1% of all abortions. and they occur almost
exclusively because a woman is at risk or her pregnancy is no longer viable. women, the unique role that we have. into -- and ton in labor we would call for an abortion. situation could be life-and-death and time sensitive. women and their doctors need every option possible. they do not need politicians tying a doctors hands or shaming the woman. becausendment is a ruse it is authorizing language in an approved reagent gold that has no business being in an appropriations bill. there is no similarity between safe and legal abortion and the false claims of infanticide.
let me repeat. abortion is safe and legal. and i might add, the law of the land. if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, it can and must be handled under existing law. or mistreatment of newborns, it must be absolutely investigated and prosecuted. i do not think anybody in this room disagrees. but this amendment is not about that. it is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign led by the president to round up base of voters and to interfere with medical care and intimidate doctors out of practicing. it is, again, meant to humiliate women. i trust women. i trust women and their doctors. we should trust women.
making the decision to continue or end a pregnancy is a complex medical and personal decision. pregnancy, aeir person must be able to make health decisions that are best for their circumstances, including whether to end a pregnancy. without interference from politicians. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i yield back. no further is debate, the member from maryland is right nice for one minute to close. >> oh. extremity -- mr. m a day.
madam chair. for the sake of clarification. clara caldwell survived an abortion attempt 22 years ago. survived an abortion attempt. josiah presley survived an abortion attempt. -- thatnek survived last one was a nurse who talked about some of the survivors. i respect where the gentlelady is coming from. but we have to be crystal clear. once a baby has left a mother's womb on a it is not part of her body. part of her heart forever. as a mother, who has had a pregnancy that was no longer viable, let me share with the committee, she actually turned seven this week.
i am intimately connected with the difficulty around this decision. we are not talking about a woman's right to an abortion. we are talking about when a baby is born. this baby is already here and deserves medical care. i realize this is a tough one. 2006, a 20 three week old baby ay was born alive at diagnostic center in florida. when he began breathing, the abortion clinic owner reportedly cut the umbilical cord and dips ,im into a biohazard bag after after which he died. it happened. belief not throwing your about being pro-choice at the window by saying once a baby is here we are going to protect it. cans remarkable to me you -- it is factually inaccurate. scientifically inaccurate.
it is i would say morally inaccurate, but at the very orst, do not use science talk about this as somehow separating a woman's right to an abortion in this country. she will still have that. i am simply arguing for those ibies who were born alive, shared a few names, who are alive today. it is a decision, i think about the nurse and the medical assistant, the mother and the doctor in that room, you talk about how mother is going to feel, that is a tough pill to swallow. i would argue at that point, when that baby deserves lifesaving care, it is not going to make it easier for the mother if that baby is killed. that is infanticide. i feel very strongly we need to be clear about this but we are about to take. with that, i yield back. chair lowey: if there is no further debate, the member from
maryland is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you very much, madam chair. the only deliberate misinformation here today is that this never occurs, that this somehow blocks access to abortion in any way. i urge members to read the amendment. this is not an authorization amendment. this is a strict limitation amendment. i know the talking points. whoever writes those talking points ought to read the bill more carefully. this does not block access to abortion in any way. there are laws on the books, but the case of the governor across the potomac river, it was about the passage of a bill that would actually repeal bans on third trimester abortions. that is when the governor said that when that baby is born somehow, is up to --
people in that room are not supposed to resuscitate that baby area that is incredible. that is unbelievable. i would never even think about not resuscitating a baby that has a heartbeat. that going tois be -- i yield back my time. chair lowey: the question is on the amendment offered by the member from maryland area all in favor say aye. those opposed samy no. s habit.wey: the no' the amendment is not adopted. recorded vote has been requested. all those in favor raise your hand. a sufficient number being in support, the clerk will call the roll. >> ms. angular. mr. hammond a. stripper ship.
chair lowey: on this vote, the are 28. 24, the nays the amendment is not adopted. this is the last amendment on defense. what purpose does the member from florida rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. i ask unanimous consent that the reading be dismissed. chair lowey: the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. >> my amendment would strike language in this bill that restricts the department of defense from transferring certain surplus military equipment to federal, state, and local law enforcement agents these. this provision, which was also in the house justice and policing act reinforces false
narrative that we need to demilitarized the police. the defense logistics agency has been administering the military surplus program. to reallocate surplus military equipment to law enforcement agencies who could benefit from those added resources. over $6 billion have been saved by law enforcement agencies because they were able to take advantage of this program. wereny of these cases they able to acquire lifesaving equipment or their officers and the citizens they serve. in 2015, president obama signed an executive order prohibiting the transfer of armored vehicles and rifles under this program. itemsare exactly the same and types of equipment used to save lives at the pulse nightclub in orlando, florida in june of 2016.
i'm sure we all remember the pulse nightclub shooting in my home state of florida. when a heavily armed individual murdered 49 floridians, wounded over 50. response, theyce set off a series of controlled explosion's to distract the shooter and used an armored vehicle to breach the walls of the nightclub so they could then pin down the suspect with fire, thosefire, and extract who were captive inside that nightclub. they saved many lives. we can call that military equipment. i would call that lifesaving equipment. one of the officers who had his savedhaped was shot -- was shot in the head. because he was wearing his
ballistic helmet, his life was saved. if this section is signed into law, many officers may not have access to the explosives, armored vehicles, rifles, or anti-ballistic helmet that saved the lives on that night. or they will simply have to purchase them at great expense to our local, state, and federal agencies. herenderlying provisions take off the table resources we have already invested in. my amendment will simply ensure this equipment remains available as we continue to have more and more of our law enforcement officers. again, this is not military equipment or are police departments. this is lifesaving equipment. think how many more
civilians and what number of officers may have had to die that night at pulse nightclub but for the equipment they had available on that night. adoption of urge this amendment. opposed to the gentlemen's amendment. he mentions lifesaving equipment. i would not disagree with this assertion that we ought to always look for ways to protect our law enforcement officials and first responders. that is exactly what our former colleague and i did when we offered the partnership act. it provides 50-50 grants for local law enforcement officers to purchase vests, which as the gentleman also points out, are very expensive. there are other forms who wish
to do that. the gentleman's amendment is adopted, the prohibitions on bayonets, i don't quite think is lifesaving or grenade launchers that i don't think are quite lifesaving, grenades or silencers would also be available. i would also point out the mentions the armored vehicle. under the provisions of the bill, vans and trucks are available. vehicles such as hummers and ambulances. the gentleman overreaches and i am opposed to this amendment. mr. calvert is recognized. >> i support the gentleman's amendment. to a partisan is writer that limits the department of defense ability to transfer property to state and local law enforcement agencies.
since the early 1990's the dod has transferred over $6 billion worth of excess or surplus equipment to states and local enforcement agencies. what is commonly referred to as the 1033 program. this program has been critical in ensuring law enforcement officers have the tools they need to protect our communities. why the country's leading law enforcement organizations oppose the obama area executive order this section would require compliance with. according to these organizations, programs like the 1033 program have been a vital resource in allowing state and local law enforcement to acquire items used in search-and-rescue operations, disaster response, and active shooter situations they otherwise would not be able to afford. , when president
rescinded the executive order, the president of the national sheriffs association said by reinstating this program, the president will provide more resources to local law enforcement to keep communities safe without any additional cost to the taxpayer. we need to listen to those serving on the front lines keeping our communities safe and protect the program from unfair attacks. i urge a yes vote on the amendment and i yelled back. chair lowey: miss lawrence is recognized. >> i speak today as a member of congress and a former mayor who had the ultimate responsibility trainedain -- professional police department. it is very clear that my colleagues on the other site had a wonderful opportunity to work
-- support the george floyd bill that would enable us to empower our police to be a community policing agent. today we are talking about giving them military equipment. the other issue i would like to those put on the minds of who think about this horrible situation that happens, the shooting incident, we must get serious about where we are with gun control in america. energy or lack of commitment to have that conversation. if we could put just as much energy in restricting the type of guns that are available in public, not to take away the second amendment right, but if to be equipped with military equipment, we should have a clear understanding of what the
machinery and weapons that should be in the hands of civilians. as long as we have a military that we fund with money from defense, we should fund them to have military equipment and it should not be in the hands of civilians. i just wish we could have a real discussion about gun-control in this country. i yield back. granger, youms. are recognized. >> i strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from florida. i understand some of my colleagues are concerned about military equipment being used in our communities. there are many more examples where this has saved lives. 2016, a police department in texas and did a tragic shooting by using equipment they received from the department of defense. the shooting resulted in the deaths of four police officers and one rapid transit officer that would have been much more deadly if police had not had
access to the equipment needed to take out the shooter. it is a sad reality that many parts of this country, police and first responders are often underfunded, preventing them from purchasing what they need to do their jobs. prohibiting law enforcement from having access to surplus equipment is wasteful and misguided. i think the gentleman for his leadership on these issues and his work in the law enforcement officer before coming to the congress. we appreciate him sharing his expertise with us on this committee. i urge a yes vote on the amendment and i yield back. >> ms. lee is recognized. >> first of all, i hope my colleagues will oppose mr. rutherford's amendment. first of all, weapons of war have no place in our communities. they cause more harm than good. they divide police with the communities they are supposed to serve and they reinforce the toxic idea that police are some
sort of undocking -- an occupied army. evidence has shown law enforcement agencies that obtain military equipment are more prone to violence. the justice in policing bill theted by -- thoughtful approach restricting 1033. it has strong restrictions that prevent anything lethal or even aggressive from being transferred. it limits the transfers to equipment available for civilian use. for a waran use, not zone. there was agreement when writing the justice and policing act that the language was stronger than obama's executive order. this defense appropriations bill carries the same strong restrictions. in response to the national
outrage over police violence, armed vehicles, and military gear, once again, these weapons , they fillede saw our streets and communities, treating peaceful protesters like they were a hostile invading force. rather than people asking for their rights to be respected. we need to change this dynamic. we start by stopping the dumping of weapons of war on our streets. please vote no on this amendment. thank you and i yield. if there is no further debate, the member from florida is recognized for one minute to close. is your mic on?
>> when i think about the officers in the north hollywood inot at the 1997 -- shootout 1997, when officers and citizens were shot, many had to be rescued by bringing in armored to get peoplek out of danger. before they bled to death. it is easy to sit in this room and talk about military equipment. when officers are out there fighting for their lives, it is not military equipment. it is just lifesaving equipment. do not turn your backs on our law enforcement men and women. they need the support -- this equipment. it saves lives. police and civilians. that incident in north
hollywood, they had to go to a gun store. went to a gun store to get rifles they could take out these heavily armed individuals. ofwent on for a couple hours. not militarizing police. it is giving them the tools they need to do their job to keep communities safe. it is not military, it is lifesaving. i urge a yes vote and i yield back area -- back. chair lowey: all votes in favor say aye. .otes opposed say no' have it.
is there any further amendment for discussion? seeing none, i recognize the gentleman from ohio for a motion. and i ask for your support for this bill. >> madame chairwoman, i moved to favorably report the defense appropriations act 2021 to the house. chair lowey: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> roll call. chair lowey: a recorded vote has been requested. all in favor, raise your hand. a sufficient number being in support, a recorded vote is ordered. >> mr. aderholt. mr. aguilar. mr. bishop.
free at last. oh no, you have to be on the floor. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] chair lowey: our third order of business today is consideration of the transportation, housing, and urban development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2021. i will recognize mr. price to
present the bill. >> thank you madame chairman. i guess we can assume everyone is now ready for the main event. i am proud to present the fiscal 2021 transportation housing and urban development related agencies appropriations. i mention highlights, i want to once again thank our ranking member and former chairman of the subcommittee for his unfailing good humor and cooperation and collaboration. he is a pleasure to work with. i also want to thank the full committee chairman for steady the membersand all of this committee from both sides of the aisle who contributed ideas to shape this bill. finally i want to recognize our excellent professional staff, our majority clerk joe carlisle.
he also benefits from a great team. we are also lucky to have our minority clerk and his colleague. i want to thank sean maxwell from my personal staff. workl appreciate the hard these people have done these past months under very unusual conditions. this year's bill represents a renewed commitment to improve affordableduce more housing, upgrade our aging transportation infrastructure, and bolster our nation's resiliency to a changing climate. at the same time as covid continues to sweep the country, we ensure vulnerable populations , veterans, domestic violence survivors, the elderly, the
disabled, vulnerable communities remain at the forefront of our efforts area -- efforts. discretionarydes funding, an increase of $1.6 billion, and 16.7 billion dollars above the president's budget request. we are grateful for receiving a healthy allocation and we are grateful for offsetting receipts which all combine has allowed us to make real progress on our nation housing and transportation infrastructure need. alsoately the bill includes major increases in contract authority for formula programs that are resources from the highway trust fund regular -- rather than direct appropriations. billion dollars for transit compared to lester's level. bestis consistent with the in america act which passed the house out of -- as part of hr to on july 1.
on the housing side, we provide increases of $100 million, $350 million for home to help secure -- to spur community revitalization and the production of affordable housing. we renew all housing choice vouchers to keep people stably housed. we provide new vouchers targeted to homeless families and others at risk. we increase homeless assistance last year's% over level. the largest increase in over a decade. the bill also includes an 11% and for the housing capital fund to address urgent health and safety issues. the bill does right by transportation. all roads received funding. amtrak receives more than $2 billion. the heavily oversubscribed build
program, receives $1 billion. the popular chrissy program for passenger and freight rail improvements is funded at $500 million. that is a deliberate increase of more than 50% over last year. sufficient resources for fda's capital investment grants, otherwise known as new starts to ensure all transit projects in the pipeline can move forward. we provide nearly half $1 million for discretionary grants low noilities and a emissions program. we also renew emphasis on safety activities at the faa, imperative in the wake of the 737 max disasters, and across d.o.t. by providing targeted funding to boost certification and enforcement and to hire highly skilled personnel. safety must always remain our
top priority, particularly at the faa. there are more highlights, but i will stop there. these investments will take us forward. our nation is facing an infrastructure crisis. under the leadership of chairwoman lowey, we have included an emergency title that provides for an additional $75 million for infrastructure investments to revitalize our transportation networks, jumpstart affordable housing production, and further reduce the disgraceful public housing capital backlog. some may object to the cost or think it inappropriate to designate this as emergency spending, but i would ask, what is the cost of continuing inaction for our economy and communities? while neighbors of both parties -- members of both parties bemoan crumbling info structure, this legislation is an opportunity to prove that congress, if not the administration, is actually serious about the issue, willing to address the issue, particular
ly as we contemplate the transition from pandemic the o full recovery. finally, i want to underscore that funding on this bill and the accompanying report promote equity and resilience for all communities. we set aside funding for areas of persistent poverty, provide dedicated funding for dot and hud to offer more technical assistance to grantees, and boost funding for programs that expand opportunity from housing counseling to workforce development to minority internship programs. the bill also seeks to protect taxpayer dollars by incorporating resilience principles into many dot and hud programs that help shape our communities. not just at the time of disasters. this means building smarter by
requiring hazard mitigation and upgrading building codes. it also includes nearly $5 billion in dedicated funding to make water and energy efficiency improvements and ensure properties are more resilient in the face of natural disasters. in closing, the departments and programs funded by the thud bill are integral to our way of life. every day, our constituents see the results of an adequate investment in info structure. natural disasters are increasing in severity and number, exacerbated by increasing climate change. meanwhile, covid-19 is ravaging communities, revealing and deepening existing disparities. this bill does its part to meet these challenges head-on. i want to again thank our ranking member as well as colleagues, on the committee from both sides of the aisle. we have been able to accommodate something like 90% of the member requests on this bill from both sides of the aisle. we have worked collaboratively and cooperatively and we look forward to continuing this to enact this legislation into law.
thank you, madam chair. chair lowey: i would like to recognize the subcommittee ranking member, mr. diaz-balart. rep. diaz-balart: thank you. i'm going to have to take this off for now. thank you chairman lowey for presenting this bill. i also want to thank you for your leadership on this committee. the remarkable relationship you and the ranking member have had in subcommittee and now in full committee, your leadership is evident in this bill's investment in safety in rail, safety and housing, and in safety and in safety. again, you have left a really deep mark with your service. yesterday, you talk about how impressed you were with the members of the committee here, but i would tell you that a big part of that is your leadership and your demeanor, and the fact
that you are a class act, so thank you, thank you, thank you madam chairwoman. i would also, chairman price, thank the staff, both majority and minority staff. i will mention a couple of people. obviously shalonda and anne-marie are probably the most sleep deprived people in d.c. yet they have a great spirit. the chairman also mentioned chris. chairman price has drafted a bill, no surprise, that thoroughly addresses the many transportation and housing needs of our nation. he has also once again really gone out of his way to include the vast majority of the requests from members of both sides of the aisle. chairman price is an honorable person who has been transparent, honorable, straightforward and a
privilege and pleasure to work with. i could not have a better partner. once again he has included policies, programs and oversight measures that will surely improve the way agencies in this bill serve constituents. i would like to thank him for a number of things especially. he included $300 million for port infrastructure grants, which is not just important to coastal states like florida, but the entire nation's freight network. it includes $389 million for the maritime academy training program that will fully fund a training ship in texas. he had to make some tough decisions to get that money, and by fully funding the ship, the chairman chose the right policy for our maritime academies to bring this new training vessel into service without delay. i am pleased the bill continues investments in rail, transit, highways, airport infrastructure. this will build on progress the committee has made in the past, creating jobs and spurring
innovation. funding of the faa will move air traffic modernization programs forward, improve safety and just noise concerns across the nation. the bill includes funding to renew housing assistance to all households currently served. let me mention why this is important and we can't take this for granted what the chairman has done. these programs required about $2 billion in additional funding just to keep pace with the inflation and i am grateful to the chairman. it is our duty to meet this commitment, especially for our elderly, disabled and veterans. i also applaud the chairman for including innovations to address homelessness in america, including families at risk of becoming homeless, victims of domestic violence and veterans. again, the chairman has done i think a remarkable job. while i strongly support most components of this bill, a fine bill he has crafted in a very
responsible way, i unfortunately at this time cannot support the entire bill before us at this time. let me say why. the bill includes as we have heard, $75 billion in emergency infrastructure spending. this is outside of last year's bipartisan budget agreement. this funding puts frankly our entire process, the hard work, at risk. it includes some controversial dod and hud measures. they were dropped last year consistent with the budget agreement and should be dropped again so we don't get stuck in unnecessary policy disputes. despite these concerns, chairman price, i want to thank you once again, for making some really important, tough policy decisions in this bill, and also again for the way you have treated the members of this committee, the members of congress, myself, in putting together this very responsible piece of legislation we have today.
i am hoping we can move forward. i am sure we will be able to have a bipartisan agreement after this is all said and done, as we need to do. with that, i yield back. chair lowey: i would now like to recognize myself for opening remarks. first of all, thank you chairman price and ranking member diaz-balart. i also want to thank again the incredible staff. we will mention all of the names another time, but our staff is incredible on the appropriations committee. the fiscal year 2021 thud bill ever since a forward-looking vision to rebuild our nation, strengthen our communities come and together we can revitalize our infrastructure, modernize our transportation system, protect the traveling public, expand access to safe, affordable housing, and support our most vulnerable neighbors. the emergency funding in this bill is pivotal to kickstart a
strong and equitable recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing economic collapse. after an unprecedented year of challenges, the investments in this bill lay the foundation for sustained economic growth and expanded opportunity for every american in every corner of our nation. this bill would fund safety upgrades on our roads and rails as well as research to improve safety technology. it would increase funding for amtrak by $50 million, which is $1.1 billion above the president's paltry requests. it would increase for the northeast quarters by $50 million. this bill provides significant funding for the gateway projects, one of the most important transportation initiatives in our country. gateway will improve safety for millions and bolster the economy for the entire nation.
in addition, the bill provides $26 billion in emergency funding to strengthen our nation's aging infrastructure. housing is fundamental to every aspect of our lives, but the cost-of-living, especially housing, continues to place significant strain on her constituents, including seniors, low income families, people with disabilities and veterans. covid-19 has only compounded this reality. this bill would make life-changing investments for americans, including $3.5 billion for community development block grants, which the presidents budget request sought to eliminate. it also increases rental assistance, homeless assistance grants, while blocking the trump administration
's cruel policies. i urge support of this bill. it makes dramatic improvements to our nation's infrastructure and the day-to-day lives of the people we represent. i would like to recognize ranking member granger for her opening remarks. rep. granger: i would like to thank chairman price and ranking member diaz-balart for their work. the programs in this bill reach into all of our communities, creating more economic opportunity and improving the quality of life for the american people. the bill continues key transportation infrastructure and safety programs, including highway, transit and port funding. funding provided for airport and for structure and air traffic modernization is critical for
the aviation industry as it recovers from the coronavirus pandemic. i want to thank chairman price for working with ranking member diaz-balart to include many of the priorities of members on our side of the aisle. unfortunately, there are some provisions in this bill that will prevent me from supporting it. the bill is not consistent with the two-year budget deal signed into law just one year ago. this bill includes an additional $1.6 billion above fiscal year 2020 because a portion of the military construction and veterans affair bill has been declared an emergency simply to make room for more spending on this and other bills. the budget agreement last december was built on understanding there would not be controversial policy riders. language is included that prevents the department of transportation, reallocating funds from the failed california high-speed rail project as well
as language that would strip regulatory authorities at the department of housing and urban development. finally, the bill includes a $75 billion of new emergency spending, including components of the infrastructure bill that was pushed through the house without republican involvement. i did not support that bill because it was a departure from years of partisan work on infrastructure priorities and i cannot support this spending until there is a serious discussion with members on our side of the aisle. the best way to advance housing and transportation opportunities for all of our constituents and get funds in a timely manner is to work together. the programs in this bill are too important to be delayed bipartisan politics. partisandelayed by politics. i hope we can address these problems and get funds distributed in timely manner is to work together. the programs in this bill are
too important to be delayed bipartisan politics. i hope we can address these problems. thank you, madam chair. i yield back. >> thank you. are there any other members wishing to make short, general comments about the bill? >> i wish to congratulate the those who worked on this bill. as our nation faces economic crises, this bill is needed to stimulate the economy and put americans back to work. the chairman's mark would do just that. i'm especially pleased the bill includes $25 million for a pilot program to restore industrial and distressed communities left behind. we know that feeling well in the industrial midwest. they have never fully recovered from nafta's devastating effects. these funds are needed. we must ensure a much more robust program is included in the covid-19 recovery legislation. this bill makes critical investments in several transportation programs that are the lifeblood of our economy in the regular appropriations.
this bill provides record funding for the st. lawrence seaway administration as well as amtrak. now is not the time to deconstruct our nation's transportation infrastructure. the bill provides $10 million in new funds to provide supportive housing for intergenerational families. i have seen the effects of economic dislocation in the opioid crisis. leaving many grandparents raising their grandchildren. these funds would help a great deal. i am grateful for the inclusion of robust funding for section four capacity building. we must think creatively to employ these funds to inspire the next generation to develop community leaders building on the experience. we will never realize a zero fatality transportation division without addressing drunk driving head-on. this committee is funding the
development of leading-edge technologies such as the driver alcohol detection. it has the most immediate chance of reducing drunk driving. we must continue to invest in stoping technologies to drunk drivers while also supporting emerging technologies. >> mr. womack is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i take my time this morning to express some disappointment of something not in the bill that has been in previous bills. i am talking about the livestock haulers, the electronic logging device exemption. it is common sense. it has been in the bill for three years. it has been supported by both sides of the aisle. anybody that has a connection to livestock haulers should surely
understand that they have two issues going on simultaneously. looking out for the safety of the motoring public. but also the care and well-being of a precious cargo. current eld regulations provide little flexibility for those hauling live animals. it can result in sickness and death, especially in the hot weather. most of our country lacks the infrastructure to load and unload livestock along major roadways, forcing livestock haulers to adhere to a one-size-fits-all regulatory environment. let's think about the coronavirus. you do not have to think in this room behind a mask to understand the hardship covid-19 has had. just ask a livestock hauler. the supply chain has been
hardshipped by coronavirus. we are going to add to the injury by not giving an exemption to the hauling of livestock. sometimes i just shake my head. what are we thinking? i would be happy to yield to the distinguished chair of the subcommittee or the ranking member, but madam chair, i just cannot believe that under these conditions, even under normal conditions, that we would not have an exemption for the people hauling the protein we are going to feed on. i yield back my time. >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to begin by commending chairman price and the staff for putting together a great appropriations bill for fiscal year 2021.
i would like to thank him for including language in the report to address the issue of field -- fuel dumping by commercial airlines. in january of this year, a low-flying airline on an emergency approach to lax dumped 85,000 pounds of jet fuel over my district including over several elementary schools where children were playing outside as well as in neighboring immunities. -- neighboring communities. this event was traumatic for the children and families it impacted. the jet fuel was dumped at low altitude. the fuel did not properly disperse into the atmosphere as is typical when airlines dump fuel to make an emergency landing. as a result, children in my district were doused with jet fuel and several individuals had to be medically evaluated. responding to this emergency, i discovered the faa does not keep track of when and where field
fuel dumps happen. the language in this bill will require faa to report on domes dumps that happened from 2015 through 2020 and the process the faa uses to review fuel dumps. this will provide congress with the information needed to evaluate current practices and make any adjustments to protect our neighborhoods. this language will also help my community and the surrounding neighborhoods and americans throughout the country know that congress takes these experiences seriously and that we are actively working to prevent this kind of traumatic event from happening again in any community. i again thank the chair and i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. kilmer is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.
let me thank the chair, the ranking member, and the staff for work on this bill. too many folks in my district really struggled to keep up with the cost of housing. i am grateful this bill makes investments to help communities like bremerton and tacoma, and countless others i represent, make progress toward meeting demand for affordable housing. this bill provides critical investments in the public housing capital fund. that will help public housing agencies that are working to develop finance and modernize public housing. it provides support for programs to help local nonprofits and community organizations deliver direct financial assistance to help folks make the leap to homeownership. this bill will improve lives. the bill also invests in the diverse transportation needs in regions like mine from promoting development to funding ferry systems and providing an additional $10 million for low and no emission ferry grants, which have helped electrify one
of the most heavily used routes in kitsap county. this will create jobs reduce the climate impacts of our transportation system. that includes capital funding for investment grants to support mass transit agencies facing challenges from covid-19. i am proud this bill recognizes the important role regional airports play in serving the emergency preparedness needs of rural communities. as a representative of a region vulnerable to natural disasters, i know how critical airports are to the emergency preparedness and disaster response. i am grateful this bill ensures airports can maintain the critical structure they need. -- critical infrastructure they need. i encourage my colleagues to support this bill. thank you madam chair, chairman price for your work in
putting this excellent bill together. it takes critical steps toward finally addressing our crumbling infrastructure while we are battling the coronavirus pandemic. it is important we look forward to how we can rebuild the economy. this investment in infrastructure are important to doing this. i am pleased to see a total of $5.7 billion for amtrak's northeast corridor including funds that can be used for the gateway program where much work is needed to be done. this bill will go a long way in addressing those needs. this bill represents a historic investment in addressing our nation's homelessness crisis. by increasing homeless assistance grants to $3.4 billion, it provides necessary help to state and local governments as they work to provide permanent housing shelters for these families. the over $27 billion in total for the public houses and capital fund will ensure residents in public houses can live in safe and well-maintained
homes. by investing $19 billion in the home investment partnership program, communities can work to expand affordable housing opportunities for low-income families. before i close, i want to thank the chair for working with me to include language that assures hud acts quickly to reimburse public housing authorities for thousands of dollars for having units converted under their rental assistance programs. i thank you again. i support this, and i urge all of my colleagues do. >> ms. delauro is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. let me thank david price and diaz-balart for their work on this bill. we thank you for your unwavering commitment to our nation's
infrastructure crisis of affordable housing, disaster recovery. continued support for these programs during the pandemic. you have been a dear friend and steadfast leader for the fourth district of north carolina. i want to say thank you to the chair and ranking member for providing $78.7 billion for service transportation programs consistent with the invest act. $750 million for the northeast corridor grant. the inclusion of funding for studies in two areas we have worked together on for many years. the first is a qualitative study of how publicly available data on rental property and safety violations impacted landlord and renter behavior. people should be able to know if the apartment they are thinking about renting has passed issues that will put themselves and their family at risk. the statistical effort related to the creation of an eviction
database including how information is collected, consistent with civil rights protections to understand eviction trends like class is protected under the fair housing act. we have taken necessary steps in the cares act to freeze evictions for federally subsidized housing. the heroes act passed in the house included a critical new 12 month moratorium on nonpayment evictions for all rental housing. given we could be facing a wave of evictions across the country , if the heroes act is not enacted, we have no way to track evictions, which would provide critical data for policymaking like deciding where resources should be spent. tracking evictions was an issue prior to the pandemic. the need is even more great as a result of covid-19.
these two critical studies will inform our policymaking to pursue how we can best track evictions and how publicly available rental property health and safety violations information allows renters to make the right decisions for themselves and their families. i strongly support this thud appropriations bill and i think the chairman and the ranking member for the dedication to making transportation and housing safer and invest in our infrastructure. >> mr. cole is recognized. >> i want to thank both our chairman and ranking member for working so well together in a -- no matter which one of them happens to be chairman in which one happens to be ranking member. it has been one of the most effective partnerships in the committee. i want to thank our chairman for not retiring this year so these opening remarks can be a lot shorter. i yield back. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. cole.
mr. cuellar. >> thank you. i also want to thank chairman price and ricky member diaz-balart for the bipartisan work they have done. i want to mention a couple things. thank you for the highway rail crossings to make sure we do not block the streets. i want to thank you for that infrastructure money. i also want to say thank you for the money for housing whether it is the homeless or housing assistance. and of course, the money you provided to the airports. i want to mention one particular item to close. that is the national security multi mission vessel. 345 million to the national security multi mission vessel program. this is something that can be assigned so they can go ahead and train merchant marine cadets. i want to say thank you so much.
i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, chairman price and ranking member diaz-balart for your hard work on this bill. i want to thank the staff as well. this bill makes critical investments in our transportation and housing infrastructure. i want to thank the committee for including one particular program. the bill provides $55 million for the federal aviation administration to replace air traffic control towers, more than doubling the enacted amount in fiscal year 2020. air traffic control towers provide essential services to the airspace system by coordinating the movement of passenger and freight flights safely and efficiently. despite the critical importance these towers serve, the average age of towers across our nation is 33 years, with the oldest towers reaching 65 years. in my district, we have two towers in desperate need of replacement. chicago rockford international
airport operates one of the oldest towers in the country. built in 1958, before the federal aviation administration was even founded, the tower is too short to allow controllers to adequately see the end of the runway. they continue to face the issues that come with any aging structure, such as losing heat during the midwest winter. that is not the kind of environment we should be asking air traffic controllers to work in. the air traffic control tower is one of the worst buildings i've ever visited during my time in congress. from a roof that leaks into asbestos filled ceilings to a basement that floods in almost any storm, this airport is long overdue for a new tower. this funding will help address the backlog of air traffic control tower needs and an important step in ensuring our controllers are given the tools
to provide for the safe movement of people and goods. i yield back. >> ms. clark is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i am grateful for this great bill by a great chairman who has a great relationship with a great ranking member and great staff to back it up. these are much-needed investments. i am particularly grateful for the domestic violence piece that you included that will help survivors prevent homelessness and help prevent seniors that come in massachusetts from being evicted in this pandemic. and for all of the climate resiliency pieces you added. thank you. i yield back. recognized.es is
>> thank you, chairwoman and chairman price. i appreciate your leadership and your staff's support throughout the process as we crafted this bill. we are meeting to discuss transportation at a time when so many streets are empty and so many flights are grounded. we are discussing housing and urban development at a time when a global pandemic has upended decades of incremental progress in communities across the inland empire where i live. and countless others across this country like it. everyone is struggling right now. some will get through these times better than others. that is why am grateful for the much-needed focus on homelessness. it includes a $250 million increase for programs to reduce unsheltered homelessness. nearly $25 billion to reduce the public housing maintenance backlog.
i'm also pleased my colleagues incorporated so many of the provisions i called for in this legislation. transit oriented development policies and a pilot program that helps state and local government make smart infrastructure investments to increase affordable housing near public transportation. $12 million to fund a regional infrastructure accelerator. blocking the administration's callous public housing rule. targeting undocumented immigrants that threatens the housing of 55,000 american children. this is a $76 billion investment in american progress at a time when so much of our society is grounded to a halt. these funds will ensure people in my community do not have to face the perils of coronavirus without the security of a place to call home.
this bill makes the investments we need to one day un-shutter our economy again. i'm proud to support it. i am proud to have worked on it under the superb leadership of our chairwoman. before i end, let me say i am truly grateful for the opportunity to serve under your leadership as appropriations committee chairwoman. especially as we review such an important bill to my district. the committee will miss your leadership and your legislative legacy, which is an inspiration to all of us. >> well, thank you. it does not appear there are any of the members wishing -- there -- mrs. lawrence, you are going to be the last member. we eagerly await your comments.
>> thank you, madam chair. i am so excited. i want to be on the public record. the cochair of the bipartisan congressional caucus on foster youth. i have fought tooth and nail to prioritize the mental health of children who are entering the foster care system. i am so grateful that the chairman and the committee included language that acknowledges the mental anguish suffered by foster youth. it strongly recommends the u.s. department of housing and urban development provide enhanced funding for collaboration with the department of health and human services to identify and support programs that could promote mental health screening for foster youth. it goes further to note that their understanding that mental health screening should occur within 30 days of a child entering the foster care system just as we do physical health screenings. we know if a child is in foster
care, they have experienced a trauma in their life. thank you so much. this is what we should be doing. i yield back. >> are there any other members wishing to make general comments about the bill? seeing no other member wishing to make opening remarks, i would be delighted to recognize chairman price to offer a manager's amendment. >> madam chair, thank you. i do indeed have a manager's amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read -- >> i ask to dispense with the reading. this amendment has technical corrections to the bill. some noncontroversial language as well to clarify the intent of a few parts. we have worked with my friend, mr. diaz-balart, and accommodated many requests from both sides of the aisle.
we are confident in asking colleagues to support this amendment. >> ranking member diaz-balart. >> good amendment, i yield back. >> are there any other members wishing to be heard? i recognize chairman price for one minute to close. askhank you madam chair, we our colleagues for support. >> all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. are there any further amendments? for what purpose does the member from florida rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> i want to ask unanimous
consent the reading be dispensed with. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. the member of florida is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. >> thank you. this amendment strikes section 193, which prevents the dot from reallocating funds from the raild california speed project. last year, the dot canceled this agreement for the reason the california high-speed rail authority failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. costs escalated from $33 billion to over $100 billion, or almost $100 billion. the initial service was going to be delayed from 2022 to as late as 2029. even governor newsom faced reality and threw in the towel
on the project, scrapping the original thread or 80 mile route from san francisco to los angeles because he said the project would cost too much and take too long and only committed to trying to complete a smaller segment from bakersfield to merced. after canceling the agreement, de-obligated $929 million in unused funds. this funding should be made available for other rail projects including other worthy projects in california. instead, the majority is forcing dot to lock these funds away if there is any litigation on the project. my amendment would free up these funds for worthy projects that are on-time, on budget and that create jobs and opportunity. i would urge a yes vote. i yield back. >> chairman price is recognized.
madam chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment. my colleague is addressing the merits of the california high-speed rail project. that is not the question before us today. what is before us is the question of whether the project should or should not be built in the midst of this litigation, and in the midst of an agreement to work it out through the legal system. the question about whether it should or should not be built is not before us. the section of the bill this amendment aims to strike simply upholds an agreement that the department of transportation and the state of california have already reached. on may 2019, the parties agreed to freeze the fiscal year 2010 high-speed rail funding for california until a decision is reached in federal court on the
dot decision to deobligate funding for the project. that agreement has been held up for over a year, so section 193 merely holds dot to that agreement. the question of dot was right or wrong to terminate the grant agreement, we can debate that all we want. that is not what we are deciding today. it will have its day in court. the existing language insurers it has its day in court and we respect the legal process. i urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. >> mr. diaz-balart. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i strongly support this amendment. i want to thank mr. rutherford for bringing it up. i do not think we should limit the ability of agencies to reallocate funds from projects that have proven to fail to deliver. they have failed to deliver on
their grant agreement. this amendment would free up nearly a billion dollars from a project that has not lived up to its expectations and has not delivered on the original agreement. i think it is a commonsense agreement. i thank the gentleman for bringing it up. i would support it. >> ms. granger is recognized. >> yes, thank you, madam chair. i also support the amendment. it is unfortunate the majority included a rider that locks away funds recovered from the high-speed rail project. those funds should be made available for other infrastructure projects that deserve our support. by striking this rider, mr. rutherford's amendment improves this bill by freeing up funds for other needs. i thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. i urge a yes vote. >> madam chairman.
way over here. >> mr. calvert is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. being from california, i could not help myself. i support this amendment. this project is the biggest boondoggle in the history of boondoggles. for god sake, let's be merciful and put a fork in it and pass this amendment. [laughter] >> if there is no further debate, the member from florida -- is there anymore? the member from florida is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, madam chair. i will be quick and say that i do not think we should reward failure. if programs are not executed as promised, the agencies under our jurisdiction should recover those funds and allocate them where they are needed. this is common sense stewardship of our taxpayers' hard aren't a
earned dollars. >> the question is on the amendment offered from the member from florida all those in . favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. the amendment is not adopted. ready? ok. for what purpose does the member from north carolina rise? >> i have an amendment to the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> i ask the reading be dispensed with. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the member of north carolina is recognized for five minutes on the amendment.
>> madam chair, i would hopefully agree that this is a highly appropriate amendment. and has to do with requiring passengers on board airplanes, amtrak trains in certain public transit vehicles to wear a face mask for the duration of the presidentially declared covid emergency. the health risk of covid-19 remain dire as cases skyrocket in many states. scientists and public health experts agree that one of the simplest things we can do in the most important things is to wear a mask. over these months, the evidence and advice has only become stronger as to how important the simple act of wearing a mask can be. my amendment mandates that until this pandemic is over, commercial airlines, the large transit agencies require
passengers and employees to wear a face mask when on board a plane, train or bus. ensuring we protect each other is not just the right thing to do. it also provides confidence to the public when it comes to travel. whether it is a quick trip to the store across town or a longer journey across the country. many of us have experienced what it is like to travel from our district to washington by plane. we have experienced the uneven safety protocols of air travel in the time of covid. some airlines have blocked middle seats. others have not. it is nearly impossible to social distance on aircraft and many other modes of public transportation. while many airlines and many transit agencies have required passengers to wear a mask, these policies are not universal. the enforcement is uneven. we are not just talking about members of congress. we are talking about everyone who travels.
health-care workers, caregivers, grocery store employees, retail workers. so many other essential people rely on trains and buses and transit to get to and from work each day. telework is not an option for these frontline heroes. just as we are wearing masks in this hearing room, at the grocery store and in public, everyone can and should wear a mask while on a plane, train or bus. it is a matter of common sense. it is a basic consideration of each other. my amendment adds a proven measure of safety to travel and provides a modicum of reassurance to the traveling public and dedicated workers from flight attendants to bus operators who keep our transportation networks running. the language is familiar to us by virtue of its inclusion in the heroes act. i ask you to support my commonsense amendment. >> ms. wasserman schultz.
>> thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of the amendment, which would require something that should have been already required. the use of masks on major forms of mass transit on major forms airlines and amtrak. as my home state of florida faces record breaking numbers of covid-19, we can no longer rely on good faith alone to see us through this pandemic. as a nation, we have to get more serious about a simple and proven tool that has helped flatten the curve in countries around the world. masks must be required on mass transit. the future and well-being of our country depends on it. this is common sense during a pandemic. in a few weeks, we have communities across the country facing children returning to school. the more people that are circulating through our communities and our economy, the more critical it is that we are wearing masks that protect one another from one another. it is absolutely essential. many americans do not understand
the scientific evidence or worse, they view the adoption of this basic safety measure eyes measure as undermining their freedom or as an affront to their political belief. my right and you're right to live without fear of being exposed to a deadly virus by my neighbor is an important right that needs acknowledgment. the right to stay healthy and not have someone else infect you because of their impudence. in a time of unprecedented fear , theonfusion and upheaval adage knowledge is power has never been more relevant. it is why i am introducing the how awareness and prevention products you act. the bill that would create national campaign through the cdc to improve public understanding of the tools and methods to reduce the transmission of covid-19. as communities proceed through the various phases of the reopening, understanding how to protect ourselves and each other
is critical. people are dying. people are becoming infected. in many cases, they are becoming infected because of others' refusal to wear a mask, or sadly, their own refusal. the science is clear. the more of us who wear a face mask, the more lives that are saved. that is scientific simplicity. as members of a civilized society, it is our shared responsibility to keep one another safe. we must think of our neighbors and our colleagues and wear a mask. we cannot beat this virus alone unguarded. it is the right thing to do. it also has the benefit of getting the economy back on track more quickly. that is something we can all unite behind. >> the hour is late. i going to close this session, but i cannot resist associating myself with the comments of the
chairman and the gentleman from -- gentlewoman from florida. as i see pictures of people attending mass events in many states around the country without masks, without social distancing and they wonder why the numbers in the united states of america are going and up -- so i think the chairman for your comments. i thin thank my friend from floa for your comments. i do hope wisdom prevails. i want to thank all the members who have been here today -- someone else? ok, i will finish my sentence. i would just like to thank all the members for your cooperation. wearing the masks, we are socially distant and i think we have accomplished a great deal in these outstanding sessions. i want to thank all the chairs and the members who have been
participating. dr. harris, was it you? i'm sorry. i did not see you. >> i seek recognition. >> you are recognized. >> i just want to offer the amendment a couple of questions. it says mask or protective face covering. that is different from cdc guidance, which is says face masks. i would like to ask, what is the other protective face covering? is that a bandana? is that a face shield? why is the language different from the cdc language? >> the language is not deliberately different from the cdc language as far as i'm concerned. a face covering is another name for a mask. this is language that was in the heroes act and was worked out with a number of -- with extensive consultations.
i cannot say we paid particular attention to it. it does not seem there is anything objectionable. we are talking about a face covering and a mask. it inhibits the spread of whatever one spreads when one coughs, sneezes or talks. >> there is a reason i ask. the june 9 edition of the american medical publication article discusses whether face shields are better than face mask. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i certainly will. >> for the improvement of the discussion, to inform the gentleman, i am reading from cdc.gov. the cdc recommends people where cloth face coverings in public settings, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.
cloth face coverings most likely to reduce the spread of covid-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings. cloth face covering should not be won by children under the age of two. they repeatedly refer to as cloth face coverings in their guidelines. i yield back. >> right. i reclaim my time. the specific cdc guidance on airplanes just says face masks. there is a reason i ask this. what i'm getting to is in other places in this amendment, you say or in accordance with cdc guidelines. you do not say it in this part. the reason i ask is because if this becomes part of law, if the cdc for instance says face shields are in fact as the evolution of protection using face coverings of some sort
occurs, the cdc could say face shields are preferable to face masks. we would be saying unless the it.uage permits that is why i asked, are face shields considered a protective face covering? my question is, is that true? secondly, why not say or following cdc guidance? cdc guidance changes over time with the evolution of scientific knowledge. it sounds like we are saying as congress, this is what it is. even if the cdc figures out something else and changes guidance at some point in time. andface shields included, why not according to cdc guidance or as recommended by the cdc? >> i think it is evident from the language that we intend to include face shields. that is why the language says what it does and is expansive as it is.
i also would hope and expect that just as it has become clear over the last three months that probably the most important single thing we can do is wear masks. i do not think that was fully appreciated three month ago. just as this evolves and the cdc learns more and issues further guidance, i would hope people implementing this legislation would be responsive to that. i believe our language is generic and expansive enough to permit the. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> if there is no further debate, the member from north carolina is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close. >> thank you, madam chair. the amendment ensures uniform standards for face coverings, worker protection and basic sanitation procedures in accordance with cdc guidelines.
it does and it will mirror basic scientific understanding. this is about common decency. it is about protecting each other. it will help restore confidence for travelers. it will help as we get the economy moving. it will provide the industry certainty about what their responsibilities are under the law. all of the stakeholders here should value the specificity and the certainty of this so that nothing is left to chance and that we protect each other. i urge adoption of the amendment. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the member from north carolina. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the
ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. what purpose does the member of new jersey rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> i ask unanimous consent. that the clerk dispense with the reading of the amendment. >> without objection. the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. >> thank you, madam chair. >> the member from new jersey is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. >> i am offering this amendment to fix technical issues with the disaster relief funding for survivors of hurricane sandy. newly eight years ago, sandy caused billions of dollars in damage in new jersey as it ravaged the east coast. unfortunately, for complex reasons, many people who were not eligible for disaster relief funds are mistakenly awarded money. now, eight years later, any
-- many families are on the road for large sums that they did not expect to repay. my amendment would allow the secretary of hud to waive recoupment, one, if the recipient is now deceased. or two, if the recipient has been defrauded, filed for bankruptcy are gone through foreclosure. it would also protect individuals from having to return funds when they received assistance from multiple programs. this duplication of benefits problem has been a major issue in many disasters and this language is similar to what the house has endorsed for other disasters on a bipartisan basis. as the only member on this committee from the state of new jersey, i am proud to offer this common sense amendment to provide a pathway leading to constituents who have shared heart-wrenching stories.
john, who wasle, a senior on a fixed income. he and his wife have had to cash out retirement funds to complete their new home. since his passing, he left behind a recoupment to his wife. -- make note that -- it makes no sense to recapture funds from an individual who is deceased. individuals experiencing extreme hardship like bankruptcy or foreclosure. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. >> i recognize -- [indiscernible] -- for one minute to close. >> i rise in support of the amendment. if i may? this is, this is an amendment
that i will take just a moment to explain. the circumstances have been lined out under which it would apply very well. i want to appreciate -- i appreciate very much her work on this, along with her colleagues from new jersey. iners have cooperated putting together what turned out to be a fairly complicated process, but in the end we have a good solution here. i'm confident in recommending it. it does appear technical and complex, but it really boils down to fairness for individuals hit by disasters. many of us have had disasters in our own states. flood, tornado, hurricane devastates a community. many funding streams are and can be used. hud to assist
individuals harmed by disasters. each program has rules and requirements. sometimes people receive funding from multiple programs without realizing they might be breaking the rules. sometimes, there is a recapture, a so-called recapture where a grantee, some of the money is taken back and used for other purposes. other recovery purposes. sometimes pursuing a recapture puts a disaster survivor in a completely untenable position. that is the point. months or years after the disaster struck, they may face the prospect of losing their home or business by virtue of having money called back. re-victimizing these individuals is not in anybody's interest.
it is a good solution, and equitable solution that will offer relief to people whom as i say we don't want to re-victimize. i should also stress that it is similar to a provision included with 3702 which passed bipartisan support under suspension of the rules last november. it simply applies that principle to additional beneficiaries. i want to thank miss watson coleman for her work on the issue and i urge support. >> thank you. i also want to thank congresswoman watson coleman for bringing up this issue. this is similar to issues that congress worn frankel and debbie wasserman schultz and i have worked on in the past, issues that come up after storms.
chairman price and i have been dealing with these issues for a number of years. the chairman mentioned the bill that passed the house, which is something we have to continue to push because it is essential, so i look forward to working with him and with congresswoman watson coleman on those issues. i think this is a good amendment under the circumstances and i would urge the adoption. >> if there was no further debate, the member from new jersey is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to stress that this is a common sense fix and i hope my colleagues will vote yes and help provide much-needed relief. thank you and i yield back. the question is in the amendment offered by the member from new jersey. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. hm.
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. it is adopted. amendmentny further or discussion? seeing none, i recognize the gentlewoman from ohio for a motion and i ask for your support for this bill. >> madame chairwoman, i moved to favorably report the transportation, housing, built to the house. >> all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. a recorded vote has been
[general chatter] >> thank you, dear. good work. on this vote, ladies and 30, then, the ayes are nose are 22, the motion is agreed to. i ask unanimous consent that the staff is committed to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and report. seeing no objections, so ordered. without objection, the committee stands adjourned. three days.
>> from the hill newspaper, justice ruth bader ginsburg was hospitalized for treatment for a possible infection after experience in fever and chills. justice ginsburg was admitted to johns hopkins hospital in baltimore following an initial evaluation in washington, d.c. on monday night. the 87-year-old justice also underwent a procedure to clean
out a vile duct stent that was placed last august. the justices resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal. every day, we are taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. this morning, jim tankersley discusses economic proposals offered by democratic presidential nominee joe biden and the role the economy will play in campaign 2020. the pew charitable trust talks about how the pandemic has impacted the opioid epidemic. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. >> here is a look at our live
coverage wednesday. at noon eastern on c-span, the house homeland security committee holds a hearing on the health and treatment of migrant children in federal custody. the house, appropriations committee meets at 9:00 a.m. eastern to consider a 2020 one spending level for homeland security operations, financial services, and other programs. on c-span3, the house oversight committee hears from cybersecurity experts about the creation of a national cyber director to streamline the federal government response to cyber attacks across agencies. that gets underway at 12:00 p.m. eastern. c-span.org has live coverage wednesday of the house small business committee hearing on proposals for aiding small businesses affected by the coronavirus. that starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern. our live daily
unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house -- on issues that matter to you. >> ongoing efforts focus on the mission to save lives, meet the needs of our states, our health care workers -- >> along with briefings on the coronavirus pandemic, supreme court oral arguments and decisions, and the latest from campaign 2020. >> your calls and comments welcomed. >> be a part of the conversation every day with our live call-in program washington journal. if you missed any of our live coverage, watch anytime on demand on c-span.org or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. >> president trump announced tuesday he had signed legislation sanctioning china for suppressing freedoms in hong kong, as well as an executive order ending u.s. preferential treatment for hong kong. the president then went on to
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on