Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, before I begin, I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Dent and Ranking Member Bishop, who worked so well together, and full Committee Chairman Rogers. The House Republican ``work harder for less'' budget resolution was opposed by every Member on my side of the aisle, in part because it makes it impossible to provide the funding necessary in the 12 appropriations bills to grow our economy and give hard-working Americans the opportunity to succeed. Democrats preferred the approach taken by the President, calling for an end to sequestration and more reasonable and realistic budgeting that can help families afford college, a home, and a secure retirement. Refusing to adopt a sufficient overall allocation for discretionary investments has a significant impact on the initiatives in all the appropriation bills that grow the economy and create jobs. The bill we consider today presents a false choice. The VA needs more resources in 2016 than 2015 to sustain its level of services for the brave men and women it serves. The majority invests a disproportionate share of the allocation's nondefense funds in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill; yet it still falls far short of meeting VA's actual needs. The equivalent of 70,000 fewer veterans would receive medical care under this bill, compared to the President's request. In addition, it further reduces funds available for priorities in the other spending bills for transportation infrastructure, job training, higher education, biomedical research, and clean energy, just as an example. All these initiatives are key to economic growth and creating opportunity for hard-working Americans, especially veterans. Additionally, $532 million in today's bill would be shifted to overseas contingency operations in a gimmick to boost defense spending. Even with these tricks, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill would have a profound impact on military families and veterans, forcing a $2.7 billion cut below what the President says is necessary, including $754 million less for military construction, $155 million less for medical services, $70 million less for medical support and compliance, $105 million less for medical facilities, and $582 million less for VA construction projects. These cuts, which hurt those who have sacrificed for our country, are unacceptable. Not everything requested by the President is sacrosanct, and Congress has a duty--it is an important part of our responsibility--to evaluate each and every line item in a budget proposal. Such an assessment of this bill makes clear that many accounts are clearly underfunded. Despite the abundant shortcomings, there are some positive aspects, including reporting requirements for electronic health records and prioritizing the elimination of the veterans claims backlog. It is imperative that, as the bill progresses toward enactment, improvements are made and that, as the entire appropriations process continues, we reach an agreement that will ensure these bills invest in our hard-working families' economic security.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment. The bill falls far short of providing the resources that the President requested and veterans earned. The National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars has demanded that ``the House amend the bill to appropriate a funding level that fully funds the VA.'' The gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Bishop) amendment does just that. The VFW went on to say the bill ``drastically underfunds medical care, major construction, and information technology accounts. . . . The VA cannot fulfill its mission without proper funding; but the House, for whatever reason, now wants to''------

Mrs. LOWEY. Yes. I just want to emphasize that the VFW strongly supports the amendment for the reasons that I suggested.

Mrs. LOWEY. I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I thank subcommittee Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur, and full committee Chairman Rogers for their work on this bill. The House Republican ``work harder for less'' budget resolution was opposed by every Member on my side of the aisle in part because it makes it impossible to provide the funding necessary in the 12 appropriations bills to grow our economy and give hard-working Americans the opportunity to succeed. Democrats much preferred the approach taken by the President, calling for an end to the sequester and more reasonable and realistic budgeting that could help families afford college, a home, and a secure retirement. The proposed funding level for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is dismal and would curtail innovation in clean and renewable energy and make us less competitive. This type of investment grows our economy and provides opportunity to hard-working Americans. But under the Republican proposal, funding would be slashed by $266 million compared to the 2015 level. A number of other areas fall far short of the President's proposal, including $82.6 million less to modernize and secure the electric grid and $240 million less for scientific research critical to addressing long-term energy needs. These levels are above the current enacted levels; but by failing to address sequestration, the majority is missing an opportunity to further invest in critical initiatives that create jobs and make American families more secure. Given the difficulty in resolving funding disputes, I am deeply disappointed that the majority also, once again, needlessly included controversial policy riders. An annual appropriations bill is not the place to make sweeping changes to environmental protection or gun laws. Despite the fact that it streamlines existing activities to protect 2.8 million ocean industry jobs and $282 billion in GDP generated by ocean industries in coastal States, the National Ocean Policy would be blocked. I do not understand how any public good is served by thwarting efficiency measures that bring together the best ecological, economic, and stakeholder-driven data. There are egregious attacks on the Clean Water Act, including locking in place a state of confusion about the scope of pollution control programs and sacrificing water quality for small streams and wetlands that contribute to the drinking water of one in three Americans. I should not have to remind my majority colleagues that similar provisions have imperiled this bill in the past. The administration is, once again, on record with veto threats of nearly identical language, and leading environmental groups have stated that these and other riders are bad policies that will put Americans' health and safety at risk. I am truly amazed that the majority would willfully go down this path again. Despite the many shortcomings, there are positive aspects, particularly the Army Corps of Engineers. In its most recent report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the U.S. a D-plus and estimated that $2.6 trillion in investments are needed by 2020. I am very grateful that Chairman Simpson included $142 million more than the current level and $865 million more than the President requested for the Army Corps. While a number of priorities in the bill receive sufficient funding, due to major shortcomings, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tepid support of H.R. 1560 and H.R. 1731, which would bolster our cyber defenses by supporting information sharing between the private sector and government. Public and private sector networks are under constant attack. Security experts and government officials alike have cautioned that as we become more interconnected and dependent on cyber networks for everyday aspects of life, the more susceptible we are to crippling cyber attacks. The attack on Sony Pictures, the major breach at Anthem that compromised personal information for nearly 80 million people, and the breaches at national retailers like Target and Home Depot demonstrate that information sharing legislation is needed. In the face of such extreme threats, Congress must enact robust protective measures that safeguard civil liberties. The two bills we are considering this week make significant improvements compared to CISPA, which passed the House last Congress. While CISPA did not require the private sector to remove personal information before sharing that information with the government or other non-government entities, H.R. 1560 and H.R. 1731 would require private entities to remove any personal information before sharing, after which the government would be required to conduct a second scrub. While I will support H.R. 1560 and H.R. 1731, improvements should be made in conference with the Senate. As drafted, the bills could provide sweeping liability protections to operators of critical infrastructure that do not take adequate defensive measures or share information about attacks against their networks. The liability protections are currently so broad that they could even provide immunity to entities that act negligently. Congress has not passed major cyber security legislation since 2002. While this week's bills are not perfect and should be improved, they would enhance our cyber defenses.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I join the Israeli people in celebrating 67 years of independence and more than six decades of steadfast support by the United States. Israel remains unquestionably our strongest ally in the region--a key supporter in our fight against terrorism and the only country in the region in which the voice of its citizens is regularly heard through the ballot box. Not only are our security interests inextricably linked, but the U.S.-Israeli relationship is firmly rooted in democratic values, common goals, and the unbreakable bond between our people. As the former Chairwoman and current Ranking Member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, I will continue to advocate for U.S. assistance to Israel, which helps our ally secure its borders and protect its citizens, as well as unequivocally support efforts to stand with Israel in international fora. This year's Yom Ha'atzmaut is an opportunity to celebrate the ties that unite us and recommit ourselves to working together on the many challenges currently facing both our great countries.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Gabriel Rosenfeld, who is being honored in memoriam at the Neighbors Link Gala this year, where the ``Be a Hero'' award will be instituted in his name. Mr. Rosenfeld, known to all as Gabby, was a good friend of mine. He was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, and fought in World War II, during which he was awarded the Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. In recognition of his service to the people of France, he was also inducted into the French Legion of Honor in 2011 and awarded the French Legion of Honor medal. Following the war, Gabby attended Cornell University, where he met his wife Louise, and together they moved to Chappaqua, New York, in my district. While living in Chappaqua, Gabby was known for his devotion to serving the community. He served as chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of New Castle for over 30 years, as well as serving on the boards of the Katonah Museum of Art, Northern Westchester Hospital, A-Home, and the Holocaust and Human Rights Education Center. He was a president of the Rotary Club and also a long-time and very active member of the New Castle Historical Society, the League of Women Voters, and the New Castle Democratic Committee. Additionally, Gabby served on the board of Neighbors Link, an organization dedicated to the healthy integration of immigrants into our communities. In memory of his lifetime of hard work and commitment to the mission of their organization, Neighbors Link has created the ``Be A Hero'' award in Gabby's name. This annual honor will pay tribute to his legacy, and will be presented to individuals who have demonstrated vision, compassion, and commitment to his or her community. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of my good friend Mr. Gabriel Rosenfeld. I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating his life, and to praise Neighbor's Link for the creation of the ``Be a Hero'' award in his name.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. No, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to recede and concur, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to recede and concur and reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this House to immediately take up and pass a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. By defeating the previous question on the pending rule, we can immediately make in order a clean Homeland Security bill and stop the theatrics over the President's use of executive orders. My colleague Ms. Roybal- Allard and I made several similar attempts, which were unfortunately defeated on party-line votes. It is my sincere hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle are now prepared to end this standoff with only hours left before the Department of Homeland Security shuts down. Republicans are playing a dangerous game with our security. As the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, I was involved in the bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the omnibus spending bill that passed the House and Senate and was signed by the President last December. That package could have contained all 12 annual spending bills because all 12 were negotiated in conference--bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans--and every one of them was ready to go; but an unfortunate decision was made by the leadership of this body to omit the Homeland Security bill, not because there were outstanding issues or continued disputes. That bill was stripped from the omnibus because some in this body were upset by the President's executive order on immigration. They even admitted the President's actions had little to do with the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, yet that was the choice that was made on how to proceed. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill was forced to operate under a continuing resolution instead of having a full-year bill. Ironically, it meant that the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, two of the agencies tasked with defending our borders and enforcing our immigration laws, had to do without the nearly $1 billion increase they would have gotten under the full-year bill. Delaying the full-year bill limits the Department's ability to advance the Secretary's unity of effort initiative, designed to improve coordination in our security missions; limits the ability of the Secretary to move ahead with the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign; creates uncertainty regarding ICE's capacity to detain and deport dangerous criminals; complicates the Department's ability to deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border stations; delays implementation of the new security upgrades at the White House and hiring increases of the U.S. Secret Service; and delays terrorism preparedness and response grants for State and local public safety personnel. I do understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel quite strongly about the President's use of executive orders on immigration policy; but do they have the courage of their convictions to look the first responders they represent in the eye and tell them that they are holding up critical assistance to firefighters, law enforcement, EMTs, and emergency managers because of an ideological fight over immigration? My friends, this is disgraceful. This is irresponsible. The Homeland Security bill should never have been held hostage.

Mrs. LOWEY. With only hours left until the Republican shutdown, hasn't this gone on long enough? Isn't it time to abandon this failed strategy and pass a clean full-year bill? To that end, I urge this whole House to join me today in defeating the previous question so that my colleague, Ms. Slaughter, can offer an amendment to provide a clean full-year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, because my friend asked some fair questions, but maybe the gentleman is not aware that the appropriations process concluded 12 bills in a bipartisan way. Democrats and Republicans worked together. However, back in December, on probably one of the key bills at this time, when we are threatened, when terrorists worry my constituents-- they worry about whether they should go to the mall; they worry about their daily activities. So when my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, just spoke about regular order, check the appropriations process. We passed the Homeland Security bill through the subcommittee, but it was held up. The gentleman will have to ask his colleagues on his side of the aisle why the Homeland Security bill was not part of the entire omnibus, why we had to invent this CR/Omnibus so we could leave out Homeland Security. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am so privileged to serve on the Appropriations Committee with the gentleman from Texas, who did an excellent job working in a bipartisan way completing a Homeland Security bill that we thought would be part of the omnibus bill so the Homeland Security Department would be funded for a year. This event was a manufactured event today, and I do hope we can get past it and pass a Homeland Security bill for the next year immediately so that we don't have even a small potential of shutting down the government. Madam Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have remaining.

Mrs. LOWEY. I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished leader.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.