[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5789-H5803]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 964 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 6157.
  Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1614


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Hultgren (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today 
pursuant to House Resolution 961, amendment No. 20 printed in House 
Report 115-783 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) had been 
disposed of.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 964, no further amendment to the bill, 
as amended, shall be in order except those printed in House Report 155-
785 and available pro forma amendments described in section 3 of House 
Resolution 961.
  Each further amendment printed in the report shall be considered only 
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment except amendments described in section 3 of House Resolution 
961, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
(Ms. Cheney) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, during the previous administration, deep 
funding cuts as well as budget dysfunction in Congress have allowed a 
real atrophying of our military readiness in the Department of Defense. 
We have seen a steep decline in our capabilities while at the same time 
our adversaries have been making advances and increasing their ability 
to threaten us.
  We now face a situation, particularly with nations like China and 
Russia, where they are developing capabilities that we may not be able 
to defend against.
  Countering this threat requires funding for the space-based missile 
defense tracking system in line 117 of the defense-wide RDTE account, 
funding that was authorized but not included in the appropriations 
bill.
  This capability is absolutely critical to improving our missile 
defense capabilities, particularly to address the rapidly increasing 
threat from hypersonic weapons, which our committee has placed 
particular focus on this year with broad bipartisan support.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, funding was not included in line 92 of 
the defense-wide RDTE account to continue critical development of laser 
scaling technologies for boost-phase ICBM missile defense. This 
technology has the potential that we need and that is crucial to give 
our warfighters the capability to shoot down missiles while they are 
still in a boost phase, making our adversaries have to think twice, 
understanding that missiles they fire at us could be destroyed over 
their own soil.
  Mr. Chairman, funding for both of these capabilities is included in 
both the House and Senate version of the NDAA.
  I have offered amendments, Mr. Chairman, to provide funding for these 
capabilities consistent with the NDAA and the Missile Defense Agency's 
revised budget request for fiscal year 2019. In an effort to allay 
concerns about finding offsets for these, I am willing to withdraw my 
amendments, and I would ask Chairwoman Granger for a commitment to 
fully support the capabilities during the conference process on the 
appropriations bill in the Senate.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming for her support of our missile defense 
programs. I agree with her support for these capabilities. I fully 
commit to working with her during the conference process to ensure both 
the missile defense tracking system and the laser scaling technologies 
for boost-phase ICBM missile defense are funded in the conference 
report.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's willingness 
to work with me on this important issue, as well as her tireless work 
on this critical bill. I will not be offering my amendments.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Barton). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 115-785.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     terminate a Reserve Officers' Training Corps program at--
       (1) a Historically Black College or University (which has 
     the meaning given the term ``part B institution'' in section 
     322 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061));
       (2) a Hispanic-serving institution (as defined in section 
     502 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1101a)); or
       (3) a Tribal College or University (as defined in section 
     316 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1059c)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, my amendment indicates that no funding in 
this act shall be used or otherwise made available by this act to end 
Reserve Officers' Training Corps, ROTC, programs at HBCUs, Hispanic-
Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.
  I want to emphasize this program because so many of us have these 
colleges in our congressional districts. Those ROTC programs provide 
training to college students to prepare them for future service in the 
branches in the U.S. military, the Army, Air Force, and Navy.
  Coming from the State of Texas, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, with 
my interaction with so many in the United States military, those who 
have said that it is a pathway to leadership and success, I know how 
important these programs are.
  The Army ROTC alone provides $274 million in scholarship money to 
more than 13,000 students. It is interesting to take note of the fact, 
as it relates to African Americans and Hispanics, the leadership that 
has come from these programs: Andrew P. Chambers, lieutenant general, 
retired; George A. Alexander; Colonel Claude A. Burnett; Colonel 
Derrick W. Flowers; Colonel Senodja Sundiata-Walker, currently serving 
as the chief of program support branch.
  These are all individuals who have been the beneficiaries of ROTC 
programs at HBCUs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges 
and Universities.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I am not opposed 
to the amendment.

[[Page H5790]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, while I will not oppose the amendment, I 
will urge caution about proposals that limit the department's 
flexibility to adapt to changes in its need in the ROTC program.
  I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her remarks 
and concern. I believe that the military has great interest in the ROTC 
program and particularly in recruitment in HBCUs and Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions.
  Let me also say, however, Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to emphasize 
my commitment to PTSD funding. I want to ensure as we go forward that 
we will increase the PTSD funding. I am interested in it being 
increased in particular by $5 million, but I know there are other 
amendments that would increase it even more.
  If we know the suffering from those who have PTSD as I have, this is 
something that I have worked for, fought for, and advocated for. The 
reason, Mr. Chairman, is I see it every day.
  My amendment would focus on the needs of those who want to live a 
normal life with post-traumatic stress disorder. Our soldiers are still 
coming back from places like Syria. We know they have come back from 
Afghanistan and Iraq, but they are still fighting there. And PTSD, 
recently diagnosed in these wars, to give these people the ability to 
be with their family, to be able to have positions because the 
treatment is there, to regain their life because what they have seen 
from the bloodshed of IEDs and the tragedies of war warrant this 
support of post-traumatic stress disorder funding.
  So I want to make note of that on the Record, of my support and the 
support for the increase. I close by saying I ask for those in support 
of the Jackson Lee amendment dealing with the ROTC, HBCUs, Hispanic-
Serving and Tribal Institutions. It is a valuable program and a 
valuable use for that program to recruit more people from those 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask support for the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules 
Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order for 
consideration of ``H.R. 6157, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2019.''
  I also thank Chair Kay Granger and Ranking Member Peter J. Visclosky 
for their work in bring the Defense Appropriations bill before the 
House for consideration.
  This Jackson Lee Amendment is No. 1 on the Second Rule for H.R. 6157 
and provides that no funding in this Act shall be used or otherwise 
made available by this Act to end Reserve Officers Training Corps 
(ROTC) programs at HBCUs, Hispanic Serving Institutions and Tribal 
Colleges and Universities.
  ROTC provides training to college students to prepare them for future 
service in branches of the U.S. military: the Army, Air Force, and 
Navy.
  The Army, Navy, and Air Force ROTC programs are annual scholarship 
awards, which combined, are the nation's largest scholarship grantors.
  The Army ROTC alone provides $274 million in scholarship money to 
more than 13,000 students each year, according to the U.S. Army Cadet 
Command.
  Nationally about 12,000 high school seniors compete for about 2,000 
Army ROTC scholarships.
  About half of these are three-year scholarships, and the other half 
are four-year scholarships
  Once students reach college, they can explore specific military 
branches by enrolling in ROTC programs provided by the Army, Navy, or 
Air Force.
  ROTC programs train future officers to serve in the U.S. Armed 
Forces.
  To students who qualify, the ROTC programs offer scholarships that 
cover the cost of their education.
  In exchange, students make a commitment to maintain academic 
excellence and later to fulfill active duty services in their chosen 
branch of the Armed Forces.
  ROTC programs reward academic excellence to students attending HBCUs, 
Hispanic Servicing Institutions, and Tribal Colleges by providing a 
path to military service.
  I ask my Colleagues in the House to support this Jackson Lee 
Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

                 List of HBCUs With Navy ROTC Programs

       Clark Atlanta University (Georgia)
       Dillard University (Louisiana)
       Florida A&M University
       Hampton University (Virginia)
       Howard University (Washington DC)
       Huston-Tillotson University (Texas)
       Morehouse College (Georgia)
       Norfolk State University (North Carolina)
       Prairie View A&M University (Texas)
       Savannah State University (Georgia)
       Southern University and A&M College (Louisiana)
       Spelman College (Georgia)
       Tennessee State University
       Tuskegee University (Alabama)
       Xavier University (Louisiana)

  Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) With Army ROTC

       Alabama A&M University
       Alcorn State University
       Bowie State University
       Central State University
       Elizabeth City State University
       Florida A&M University
       Fort Valley State University
       Grambling State University
       Hampton University
       Howard University
       Jackson State University
       Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)
       Lincoln University (Missouri)
       Morgan State University
       Norfolk State University
       North Carolina A&T State University
       Prairie View A&M University
       Saint Augustine's College
       South Carolina State University
       Southern University and A&M College
       Tuskegee University
       University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
       Virginia State University
       West Virginia State University

Learn How People Have Gained From ROTC Leadership That Lasts a Lifetime

       LTG (Ret) Andrew P. Chambers, Lieutenant General, U.S. 
     Army, Retired
       LTG (Ret) Chambers graduated from Howard University and 
     Commission as an Infantry Officer in 1954. After 35 years of 
     service LTG Chambers retired from the Army in 1989. He then 
     held the position of Director of Industry Operations for the 
     Association of the United States Army, later assumed the role 
     of Director of Community Services for AmeriCorps and then 
     served as Vice President of University of Maryland University 
     College Europe, retiring in 2005
       LTG (Ret) Chambers passed away on June 3, 2017 (age 86) and 
     was buried with full military honors at Arlington Nation 
     Cemetery.

       MG (Ret) George A. Alexander, Former Deputy Surgeon 
     General, Office of the U.S. Army Surgeon General, HQS, 
     Department of the Army
       MG (Ret) Alexander is an active alumni and strong supporter 
     of the Howard University Army ROTC Program. He graduated from 
     Howard University College of Medicine in 1977 and was 
     commissioned in 1979.

       COL Claude A. Burnett
       Currently serving the Chief of the Department of Obstetrics 
     and Gynecology and Acting Chief of the Division of Surgery at 
     Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany
       COL Burnett graduated from Howard University with a BS in 
     Chemistry and received his commission in 1992. He went on to 
     obtain his medical degree from Meharry Medical College in 
     Nashville, TN.

       COL Derrick W. Flowers
       Currently the G-8/Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for 
     Resource Management, Headquarters, US Army Medical Command, 
     for Sam Houston, TX.
       COL Flowers received his Bachelor of Business 
     Administration Degree in Accounting and commission as a 
     Medical Services Corps officer from Howard University in 
     1990.

       COL Senodja F. Sundiata-Walker
       Currently serving as the Chief of Program Support Branch, 
     Washington D.C.
       COL Sundiata-Walker graduated and received her commission 
     from Howard University as a Military Intelligence Officer in 
     1995.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Kelly) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the 
gentlewoman in a colloquy on the importance of the Butler County 
workforce to Federal background investigation operations. The National 
Background Investigations Bureau has approximately 1,500 employees and 
contractors in Boyers, Pennsylvania, which is in my district, who 
handle the intake and processing of Federal background investigations.
  As you know, the NDAA last year split the NBIB between the Office of 
Personnel Management and the Department of Defense. This misguided move 
would have disrupted operations and negatively affected the critical 
workforce.

[[Page H5791]]

  I applaud the Trump administration for announcing last week that it 
will be keeping the NBIB intact and shifting it entirely to the DOD. 
This action will keep all background investigations under the same 
agency and will retain economies of scale to efficiently perform these 
critical operations.
  On Monday, I met with the DOD officials responsible for the transfer. 
They assured me that there are no plans to move any jobs outside Butler 
County. This is good news for my constituents, but more communication 
is necessary.
  These 1,500 people perform an incredible service to our Nation, and 
these jobs are critical to Butler County. This workforce has the 
expertise and experience to perform this sensitive work that keeps our 
Nation secure. Any efforts to reduce backlog in background 
investigations must utilize this talented and hardworking workforce.
  Chairman Granger, would you agree that the NBIB workforce in Butler 
County is integral to our country's background checks operations?
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's commitment to this matter. We respect the dedication and 
accomplishments of all National Background Investigations Bureau 
workers, including the hard work of the staff in Butler County, 
Pennsylvania. There is currently a backlog of more than 700,000 pending 
security clearance cases.
  Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told my subcommittee that the Air 
Force has 79,000 people still waiting for security clearances, and that 
number has almost doubled in the last 18 months. We want to work with 
your office to make sure we address that as much as possible, and I 
look forward to your continuing partnership in this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
her dedication to this issue. It is important to not lose sight of the 
significance of this workforce to my district.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Frankel of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,000,000) (increased by $4,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Frankel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, research shows that when women 
have a seat at the table, the prospect that peace negotiations will 
succeed rises significantly.
  The Women, Peace, and Security Act enacted into law last year 
requires the Department of Defense to leverage the unique roles women 
bring to the table in peace building, conflict resolution, and military 
operations.
  This amendment would build on this law by allocating additional 
funding for full-time gender advisers, training foreign security forces 
on how to include women in their security efforts, and research on 
women's contributions to security at the National Defense University.
  Mr. Chair, according to Womankind World, which is a global women's 
rights organization, women and girls suffer disproportionately during 
violent conflict. Sexual violence is often used as an instrument of 
war. Although men and boys also may be abused, it is this way that 
women and girls are primarily targeted. For example, during Sierra 
Leone's 11-year civil war, an estimated 250,000 women experienced 
sexual violence.
  The destabilizing effect of conflict on families and communities can 
mean other forms of violence increasing in intensity, including 
domestic violence, sexual exploitation, and trafficking. Refugee women 
and girls are especially vulnerable.
  Although they are disproportionately affected by conflict, women seem 
to be sidelined from formal conflict resolution and peace processes, 
meaning that postconflict recovery and reconciliation programs often 
overlook women's specific needs.
  Over the last two decades, women accounted for just 9 percent of 
negotiators at peace tables. Out of 585 peace agreements from 1990 to 
2010, only 92 contained any reference to women.
  Despite that, women play an essential role in building peace in local 
communities. However, of course, women face multiple barriers. Even so, 
evidence shows that formal peace agreements that include women's 
perspectives are most likely to last.
  Mr. Chair, we have an opportunity to make women's voices heard and to 
make the world a safer place. I urge adoption of this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, but I don't oppose the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, women have a larger presence in our 
military today than ever before, with more than 200,000 women serving 
in Active-Duty military. Women serve as leaders in all jobs and in all 
branches of the military. Women have served in every conflict from the 
American Revolution to the current war on terror.
  From their early days as cooks and nurses to the combat roles they 
fulfill today, the roles of women have evolved with the military. So I 
am pleased to support this amendment, which will continue to further 
the growth of our 21st century women warfighters.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I want to speak about the production 
of the Tomahawk cruise missile.
  The Tomahawk is a battle-tested weapon that has been used in combat 
over 2,300 times. Tomahawks were launched in 2016 and again in April of 
this year in response to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons. 
The Tomahawk continues to be a credible, standoff weapon that provides 
lethal effects while keeping American fighting men and women in 
relative safety.
  The 2018 National Defense Strategy prioritizes action against near-
peer nations with significant area-denial capabilities. The Tomahawk is 
the Nation's preferred weapon to carry out this difficult mission. 
Halting production and devastating the missile's industrial base is 
ill-advised as the threat of near-peer warfare increases.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this 
critical weapons system, and I want to assure him that the committee 
supports the continued production of Tomahawk missiles.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the committee's support 
for the program and was encouraged to see additional funding for 
increased Tomahawk missile production in FY18. I would like to 
emphasize that this funding was provided at the Navy's request. 
However, I understand that the Navy recently informed the committee 
that they intend to utilize this for purchasing support equipment 
instead of missiles, as the committee intended.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman is correct. The committee 
increased funding for Tomahawk production 2 years in a row. Using this 
funding for other purposes is contrary to congressional direction, and 
this is the second year in a row that the Navy has blatantly 
disregarded our instructions. The action by the Navy led the committee 
to recommend a rescission of prior year funding for Tomahawks.
  Despite this rescission, the committee remains supportive of 
additional Tomahawk production and is

[[Page H5792]]

awaiting a revised plan from the Navy on how they will spend the 
previously appropriated funding for missile production.
  I assure the gentleman from Utah that the committee will revisit this 
issue in conference, when the Navy indicates affirmatively they will 
use additional funding solely for missile production.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I agree with the chairwoman that the 
Navy's disregard for congressional direction and intent is 
unacceptable. I appreciate her support for this important war-fighting 
capability. I look forward to resolving this issue in conference.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 3 will not 
be offered.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Heck) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask for the chairwoman's assistance 
on an impending threat to our national security.
  Roads surrounding military installations play an important role in 
preserving military readiness. Our Armed Forces need to mobilize 
quickly, and we need functional roads in order to do that. The same is 
true for other infrastructure supporting defense communities where our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines live and raise their families.
  This is a problem all over this country and a severe one, but it is 
especially acute right outside Joint Base Lewis-McChord in the 10th 
Congressional District of Washington, which I have the privilege to 
represent and is the largest force projection base in the Western 
United States. More than 50,000 people report to work there every day. 
It is the second most requested location in the Army, second to Hawaii. 
Still, I am thrilled when they get new things like, recently, the C-17 
Weapons Instructor Course and a Security Force Assistance Brigade.
  What I am not thrilled about is the frustratingly long wait times at 
the front gate for JBLM or the heavy traffic diverting through 
neighborhoods to avoid traffic jams.
  My very first term in Congress, I introduced the COMMUTE Act to help 
address these issues. I have been working on the problem every year 
since. This year, both the House and Senate authorizing committees 
acknowledged this need by creating the Defense Community Infrastructure 
Program, or DCIP. This program builds off the COMMUTE Act and 
encourages infrastructure projects near military installations that are 
caused by their presence.
  I know being stuck in traffic is not something unknown to most 
Americans. We are all too familiar with the horrible feeling of 
approaching an unexpected slow crawl on the road. But when this affects 
our military's ability to get to the base to do the job and be ready 
for anything, that is when we can't just sit and sit and wait and wait, 
as I have, year in and year out, for it to get better.
  If servicemembers cannot get on and off base, they may decide to 
never leave the base. But military bases are not islands in our 
districts. They are integral parts of the community. Expecting 
servicemembers to stay behind the force protection of their bases 
exacerbates the civil-military divide.
  It is shortsighted and foolhardy not to consider the infrastructure 
surrounding and supporting our installations. The Federal Government 
must play a role in addressing military community infrastructure 
projects.

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for raising the 
issue of off-base infrastructure. I know the gentleman has been working 
on this issue since his first days in Congress, and I commend his 
dedication.
  I appreciate that the authorizing committee has given us a tool to 
begin to address this problem. Unfortunately, we don't yet know the 
full scope of the challenge. Before we can appropriate funds to a 
program like the Defense Community Infrastructure Program, we need more 
information to define the priorities and ensure that the most urgent 
needs are met.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman very much for 
acknowledging this problem and for her commitment to work to address 
it.
  Over the summer, I will work with relevant stakeholders, including 
the authorizing committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the 
Association of Defense Communities, which strongly supports this 
proposal, to get the gentlewoman and her staff a sense of the scope of 
this problem.
  I look forward to working with the Defense Subcommittee on tackling 
the problem and finding the resources to update and repair 
infrastructure around military bases.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, yes, I can commit to working on this issue if 
the gentleman can give me the details on the scope of what we need to 
solve.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Rosen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Mr. Hastings of 
Florida, and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Rosen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment No. 4, which I am offering with 
Congressman Hastings, would designate an additional $5 million for the 
training and retention of cybersecurity professionals under the 
defense-wide operation and maintenance account.
  We discuss cybersecurity frequently here in Congress because 
cyberspace touches everything. As a former computer programer and a 
member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee, I can tell you that we rely on cyberspace for so 
much: our military, schools, businesses, State and local governments.
  We all understand the importance of prioritizing cybersecurity and 
the defense of cyberspace, because the challenges we are already facing 
will continue to grow both at home and abroad.
  Actors half a world away are targeting our hospitals, banks, and 
financial networks, not to mention military installations. Attacks are 
getting more sophisticated, and they are happening every single day.
  Last year, the GAO reported that, between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal 
year 2015, cybersecurity incidents increased from over 5,500 to over 
77,000, an increase of more than 1,300 percent. The report recommended 
that the Federal Government enhance efforts for recruiting and 
retaining a qualified cybersecurity workforce and improve cybersecurity 
workforce planning activities.
  As we look to defend ourselves, we need the very best talent. I am 
particularly aware of the need for expanding partnerships with academia 
and the private sector, which will create the cybersecurity people 
pipeline that our government and our private sector businesses need.
  Programs like the National Centers of Academic Excellence, jointly 
sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security and the National 
Security Agency, for instance, serve as examples of the direction we 
should be headed.
  As U.S. Cyber Command steps up its recruiting efforts, we must ensure 
that the necessary resources for training the next generation of 
cybersecurity specialists are made available now, wherever they are 
needed. This amendment is just a drop in the bucket, but it 
demonstrates how seriously we take this issue.
  I want to thank my distinguished colleague, Congressman Alcee 
Hastings, for helping to lead this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I 
don't oppose the amendment.

[[Page H5793]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, the Department of Defense is responsible for 
defending the homeland and U.S. interests from attack, including 
attacks that may occur in cyberspace. This is an important mission and 
one that this bill prioritizes by providing $8 billion across the 
entire cybersecurity landscape.
  Our Nation's cybersecurity posture starts with our cybersecurity 
professionals. The gentlewoman's amendment provides an additional $5 
million to ensure that we continue to have the most qualified and 
highly trained cybersecurity professionals in the world.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased to accept the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Rosen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Lynch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by 
     $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair and the ranking member for 
their willingness to hear this amendment. I also want to thank the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions and Mr. McGovern, for ruling that this 
amendment is in order.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide an additional $10 million to 
the defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, formerly known as JPAC, for its 
newly expanded mission to bring home our missing servicemembers in 
North Korea.
  In light of the recent agreement that includes a commitment to 
recover and repatriate U.S. POW/MIA remains from North Korea, we must 
ensure that the DPAA will be able to move quickly to take advantage of 
this unexpected opportunity.
  As most Members are aware, nearly 8,000 U.S. servicemembers are still 
categorized as missing in action and presumed dead from World War II, 
the Korean war, and the Vietnam war. According to the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, the remains of about 5,300 of our sons and daughters in 
uniform are believed to be in North Korea. Many of them fell in battle 
near the Battle of Chosin Reservoir in November and December of 1950, 
the scene of one of the most heroic battles in U.S. military history, 
and certainly U.S. Marine Corps history.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been 65 years since the Korean war ceasefire was 
put into effect. For those brave Americans and so many American 
families, to be still missing after so long is a tragedy. These brave 
servicemembers and their families deserve better.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. Chairman, I have been involved with this issue for the past 8 
years. I actually went out with JPAC to the South Pacific and the 
Philippines, to Vietnam and to Korea to observe their recovery efforts.
  I had a chance to visit the headquarters at Hickam Air Force Base at 
Pearl Harbor where a dedicated group of our forensic pathologists are 
working tirelessly to use modern techniques to identify each of our 
brave heroes and return them to their families and their hometowns to 
receive the dignified and respectful remembrance that they deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very unique opportunity. We have to act 
quickly. The mitochondrial DNA that allows us to identify our sons and 
daughters in uniform breaks down over time because of conditions in the 
soil. If we don't act quickly, we will lose this opportunity.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't 
oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, as discussed yesterday on the Allen-Raskin 
amendment, I support the work of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Office. 
They perform tireless work to track, locate, and recover our fallen 
heroes, and I thank them for their continued efforts.
  That is why the base bill already includes $10 million above the 
budget request. I supported the Allen-Raskin amendment yesterday, which 
provides an additional $10 million above the request. This amendment 
provides $10 million, which will support continued efforts to return 
our fallen heroes home where they belong.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I simply want to join the chairwoman. She 
has correctly pointed out that there is a significant increase in the 
bill, but I do support the amendment, as does the chairwoman.
  As was pointed out, we do need to act quickly. Most of the 82,000 
Americans that remain missing are from World War II, the Korean war, 
and Vietnam. With the most recent of those wars ending over 40 years 
ago, fewer and fewer immediate families of those missing are still 
alive. I do think we should have a sense of urgency.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I appreciate 
him yielding.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for her indulgence and 
also thank the ranking member. I ask Members to support this amendment 
to support the DPAA in its efforts to find and repatriate our missing 
heroes.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 18, line 4, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,100,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentlewoman 
from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chair, my amendment to the fiscal 
year 2019 Defense Appropriations bill will fund the first-ever study of 
a subject the Department of Defense has identified as ``one of the most 
significant barriers to sexual assaults being reported.''
  The amendment carries with it bipartisan support, and I would like to 
thank Republican Representative Mia Love and Democratic Congresswoman 
Jackie Speier for joining me in cosponsoring this amendment, because 
they recognize its importance.
  For far too long, servicemembers have survived sexual assaults only 
to suffer in silence. They have refused to bring their assailants to 
justice and receive medical attention not because they fear their 
attacker, but, rather, they fear a military policy which requires that 
their commanders punish them for minor violations. These transgressions 
are brought to light during the investigation of their assault. 
Consequently, many survivors decide against reporting their attacks and 
bringing their assailants to justice.

[[Page H5794]]

  A RAND survey of military members who survive sexual assaults but 
refuse to report the attacks found that 22 percent feared being 
punished for collateral misconduct. The list of survivors who have had 
their military careers ruined because they demanded justice is also 
lengthy, but the only facts I can offer you are a survey and anecdotal 
evidence.
  Not a single branch of the military systematically tracks this 
collateral misconduct. Our only previous effort to examine an aspect of 
the subject came in 2016. The FY 2017 NDAA, which passed with 
bipartisan support, directed the Pentagon's inspector general to review 
the cases of survivors who were separated from the service after 
reporting their assaults.
  The IG reported 22 percent of these survivors couldn't have their 
cases reviewed because their military records had gone missing. 
Moreover, 67 percent of the records were incomplete.
  This funding will support a first-ever study to be conducted by the 
Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense 
of Sexual Assault in the Armed Services, otherwise known as DAC-IPAD. 
That study was introduced by my bill required by the fiscal year 2019 
NDAA, which the House passed earlier this year. The funds would pay for 
the lawyers needed to fund a long-overdue, in-depth, and independent 
review of collateral misconduct.
  We know that collateral misconduct is an issue, but we need to know 
just how pervasive it is and gather information on when and how it 
manifests to empower our commanders to, hopefully, solve this problem. 
We owe it to our men and women in uniform to study and review 
collateral misconduct.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, the military and society at large must do 
more to change the stigma of sexual assault so victims are not afraid 
of retaliation when coming forward and reporting the crime.
  This bill provides $318 million for sexual assault prevention and 
response programs at the service level and at the Department of Defense 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program. This is $35 million 
above the President's request.
  I understand this amendment funds a report required by the 2019 
House-passed National Defense Authorization Act, to which we do not 
object.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gallagher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $23,800,000)''.
       Page 22, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $23,800,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
to restore $24 million for Navy AIM-120 Delta AMRAAM procurement to 
match House-passed NDAA levels.
  When he rolled out the National Defense Strategy, Secretary Mattis 
was clear: ``Great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary 
focus of U.S. national security.''
  Nowhere is this competition more intense than in the Indo-Pacific, 
where the ``fight tonight'' mission has never been more urgent, given 
threats from both great powers and rogue regimes.
  Pentagon leaders have been clear: addressing critical munitions 
shortfalls such as the AMRAAM is a top priority.
  During his confirmation, the new Indo-PACOM commander, Phil Davidson, 
listed critical munitions stockpiles as one of his top two capability 
and capacity challenges to addressing threats in the Indo-Pacific. 
Admiral Davidson went on to list advancements in air-to-air munitions--
and the AIM-120D in particular--as his top solution to challenges 
presented by anti-access area-denial capabilities.
  Unfortunately, our AMRAAM inventory is currently at only 50 percent 
of the requirement--50 percent. We cannot afford to cut any further.
  It is no surprise, then, that the Statement of Administration Policy 
on this bill singles out munitions reductions as an area of special 
concern. To quote the Statement of Administration Policy: ``DOD still 
has shortfalls in preferred munitions needed to achieve successfully 
the operational plans identified in the National Defense Strategy.'' 
And the very first munition mentioned is the AIM-120D AMRAAM.
  Let's be clear about the implications here. The NDS is about great 
power competition. Our ability to win--or, much preferably, deter a 
great power war--comes down to our ability to execute these plans and 
impose our will on our adversaries.
  These same adversaries are watching American defense spending debates 
right now, looking for signs such as failing to address publicly 
reported shortfalls, that America is not serious about long-term 
competition. Decisions like this, here and now, may seem small, but 
they all add up to tell a story that our friends and our foes, alike, 
receive loud and clear.
  Last year, on a bipartisan basis, we were able to help address key 
Mark 48 torpedo shortfalls in this appropriations bill in order to 
address a critical war-fighting need. I hope we can build on this 
success this time around.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to match 
the House-passed authorization level as well as the administration 
request, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to reverse a justified 
reduction made by the committee to the request for the AMRAAM missile 
program.
  Both the Navy and the Air Force, historically, overestimate the cost 
of the missile in their budget request. In the last 5 years, this 
overestimation has been 12 percent, on average. The fiscal year 2019 
request assumes a unit cost that is 16 percent more than the most 
recent contract.
  For several years in a row, Congress has adjusted the budget request 
for this program to account for these overestimates and other facts of 
life, such as production delays. In fact, the delivery schedule for 
this program has been revised 25 times since 2011, and the production 
of new guidance system components is 21 months behind schedule.
  The Department, itself, has frequently sought to take savings from 
the AMRAAM program for other priorities. For example, the Air Force 
has, 5 years straight on, sought approval to reprogram a total of $57 
million of this program to other needs. This is in addition to the 
reductions that have been taken by Congress. It, therefore, defies the 
facts to claim that this program is being underfunded.
  Because of the long time it takes the Department of Defense to put 
together its budget request, these requests do not always reflect the 
most current information. The committee takes commonsense reductions 
when they will do no harm to national security.
  I must add that this is precisely the sort of commonsense reduction 
to the President's budget that enables us to accommodate the priorities 
of Members of this body. This year we received approximately 6,600 such 
requests.

  The committee will continue to engage with the Navy and Air Force on 
this program and make adjustments as needed. This amendment, however, 
would restrict our ability to ensure that the priorities of this body 
are reflected in the final bill.
  Mr. Chair, I, therefore, oppose the amendment and urge its rejection, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5795]]

  

  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chair, I would say I am all for finding 
efficiencies wherever we can get them, particularly in a very tight 
budgetary environment. That is why, in structuring this amendment, we 
need a concerted effort to prioritize the urgent operational 
requirements faced day in and day out in the Pacific where, 
notwithstanding any past delays, the balance of power, I would argue, 
is rapidly shifting against us and where any further shifts could 
really harm our ability to project power in the future.
  We have also provided the Defense Contract Management Agency the 
flexibility to make modest steps toward finding efficiencies in its 
budget. Even after accounting for this offset, DCMA O&M would be funded 
at nearly $25 million over the House-passed NDAA level.
  I would also say, our offset supports House-passed NDAA reductions to 
bureaucratic overhead in the so-called DOD fourth estate. In line with 
finding efficiencies, the fourth estate is comprised of the 
organizations within DOD that do not report to a military service and 
have proven difficult to manage or oversee, and I think the savings 
identified will go directly toward critical munitions for the 
warfighter--in other words, maximizing tooth while minimizing tail--
getting as much of the resource as possible out of the bureaucracy in 
the Pentagon and at the front lines where our warfighters need it most.

                              {time}  1700

  I have enormous respect for the chairwoman's position, I appreciate 
her willingness to consider this, and I appreciate the robust debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, in closing, as I have stated, these sorts 
of commonsense adjustments to the President's budget request must be 
made to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars and accommodate higher 
priorities, including Member priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Gallagher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $33,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $33,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, as with the preceding amendment, this 
proposal addresses critical munitions shortfalls, this time by 
providing $33 million for Air Force AIM-120D AMRAAM procurement to 
match the NDAA.
  The same argument for Navy AMRAAM procurement apply equally to this 
amendment as well. In order to support Indo-PACOM's fight tonight 
mission, we must increase our stockpiles of critical munitions. With 
our AMRAAM inventory currently at 50 percent of the requirement, we 
cannot afford to see further cuts.
  This amendment would simply restore the House-passed NDAA level for 
Air Force AMRAAM procurement, and addresses one of the specific 
concerns outlined in the SAP on this bill.
  I understand the argument on finding efficiencies. I just think it is 
worth remembering, particularly when we look at that region of the 
world, that aggression in the Pacific has historically caught our 
country off guard. After all, not only did the attack on Pearl Harbor 
and the North Korean advance past the 38th parallel come as a surprise, 
but we were similarly stunned by the rapid Chinese entry into the 
Korean war.
  These mistakes cost American lives and forced our men and women in 
uniform to play catch-up. And I know that such a level of conflict may 
seem unthinkable in the post-Cold War world, but history has a way of, 
if not repeating itself, rhyming from time to time.
  While this small investment will not inoculate us entirely against 
being caught flat-footed once again, it is a small step towards 
addressing critical munition shortfalls and giving our combatant and 
commanders the tools they need to deter conflict in the first place; 
and, if the worst does happen, be ready with the munitions they need.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this proposal, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct in his 
assertion that his amendment restores the cut made by the committee of 
$23.8 million in this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out for my colleagues 
that there is a misimpression of our subcommittee that we simply 
helter-skelter approve anything that the Department of Defense sends 
up, but we try to give discrete decisions to each program and to 
rearrange those moneys. There was a cut from the administration's 
request, and that money was put into readiness, which is a huge concern 
for the Department.
  And, historically, on the program that the gentleman references, my 
remarks would very much mirror those of the gentlewoman from his last 
amendment. Historically, the Air Force, along with the Navy, 
overestimates that the cost of the missile just discussed, on average, 
the cost has been overestimated by 12 percent.
  For the fiscal year 2019 budget submission, the unit cost is 16 
percent more than the most recent contract for production. The budget 
request for this program has been adjusted for several years now, due 
to the overestimates submitted and other factors, such as revisions to 
delivery schedules, and a 21-month delay for components.
  The committee works with the military services to ensure the program 
receives the funding needed to produce this munition, and adjustments 
are made. The subcommittee did make an adjustment. I believe it is in 
our Nation's interest to leave that $23.8 million in readiness.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I know, to some extent, we always seem to be making 
choices between near-term readiness requirements and long-term 
modernization efforts. I would submit, however, that that is a false 
choice, or perhaps is a choice that has been foisted upon us by bad 
budgetary decisions that we have made in the past 6 years.
  The reality is, if you take a look at the world, we are going to have 
to do both things at the same time: invest in both readiness and 
modernization.
  So I have enormous respect for those efforts to find efficiencies and 
make sure we can put dollars where people need them most. I simply, on 
balance, would like to put money in the hands of warfighters who are 
dealing with threats on the front lines as much as humanly possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I simply close by making the 
observation: the gentleman talks about choices. The committee did make 
a choice for readiness as opposed to munition, where we have a 21-month 
delay in components.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5796]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Hudson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, which would increase funding 
for USSOCOM to provide for additional training of Special Operations 
Forces. Simply put, I never want our men and women in uniform to be in 
a fair fight. My amendment would allow for an increase in the training 
budget to ensure, whenever our forces are deployed, they have been 
fully prepared and are ready to fight, win, and return home safely.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest honors of my life is representing 
Fort Bragg, the epicenter of the universe, and home of the airborne and 
of the Army Special Operations Command. The units stationed here 
represent the best of the best and have a vast footprint across our 
Nation.
  As our Nation continues to fight terrorism around the world, while 
simultaneously preparing for the threats of near-peer adversaries, our 
training requirements increase and diversify.
  As a result, we must ensure that we are ready for any situation at a 
moment's notice. Readiness cannot be built overnight. A Green Beret 
cannot be built overnight. In order to conduct their mission set 
effectively, we must provide them with a steady stream of predictable 
resources to enable them to train and prepare for the dangerous tasks 
our Nation asks them to perform.
  We must never underestimate the most important asset our military 
has: the individual. My amendment would ensure that we continue to take 
care of that asset by providing them every edge, every bit of 
preparation, and, yes, every bit of training that they require.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairwoman Granger for her excellent work on 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I 
don't oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides a modest increase 
in the training budget for the Special Operations Command. Like my 
colleague, I want to make sure that our soldiers are able to deal with 
any contingency that may confront them.
  Our Special Forces deploy to some of the most austere and unique 
environments in the world. We should do all that we can to ensure their 
success.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Welch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,300,000)''.
       Page 34, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase funding for the 
Department of Defense health programs by $1 million to improve 
coordination between DOD and the VA on research and findings related to 
toxic exposure to burn pits.
  As you know, burn pits were commonly used on U.S. military sites 
during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to burn all types of waste from 
chemicals, paint, and medical and human waste to munitions, petroleum, 
plastics, and rubber. But, also, as you know, many members of the 
military, who were exposed to burn pits, are beginning to experience 
negative health effects from the toxic smoke that they inhaled while on 
duty.
  That is why I am offering this amendment: to increase cross-agency 
communication and research so that the Departments can assist those 
suffering more aggressively and quickly.
  On May 7, I met in Vermont with a group of National Guard members, 
led by Pat Cram, who have been impacted by burn pit exposure. Pat is 
the wife of Sergeant Major Mike Cram of the Vermont National Guard, who 
died this past December from prostate cancer, believed to be a direct 
result of his exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he 
did several tours.
  Sergeant Major Cram first deployed to Iraq in 2004 with a group of 
MPs from the 42nd Infantry Division of the Vermont National Guard. They 
joined up with the 278th Tennessee National Guard Calvary in Iraq. All 
21 soldiers from this group, who deployed together for 18 months, 
returned home safely, thank God.
  But since their safe return, that same group has lost two members 
from prostate cancer, and another has been treated for it. They 
believe, and some of the medical professionals believe, that the 
explanation is that it occurred as a result of exposure to burn pits.
  This funding would provide some resources necessary for the VA and 
Pentagon to work on the issue together effectively so that we can 
address the direct relationship between burn pits and severe health 
conditions.
  This amendment idea aligns with a June 2018 GAO recommendation that 
highlighted the need for these Departments to work together to solve 
this issue. This is reminiscent, potentially, of the Agent Orange 
situation where, for many years, people were trying to figure out what 
the cause of the cancers were, and it turned out, after a lot of 
investigation, that it was directly related to Agent Orange.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Granger, who, on occasion, I have 
traveled with and whose service I have really respected, and Ranking 
Member Visclosky, for their attention to this issue and willingness to 
help.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the great group of Members who worked with me 
on this amendment, including Representatives Soto, Bilirakis, Gabbard, 
Wenstrup, Ruiz, and Rosen.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am 
not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern. 
This amendment would increase funding in the defense health program 
account, aiming to improve coordination between the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, as both agencies study 
the effects of toxic exposure to burn pits.
  It is important to both Departments to be aware of what the other has 
done

[[Page H5797]]

in this important area of research, therefore, I am prepared to accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her support, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Nolan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chair, as cochairman with Frank LoBiondo in our 
bipartisan Congressional Lung Cancer Caucus, and Frank LoBiondo is a 
cosponsor of this amendment, I want to begin by expressing our 
appreciation for making this amendment in order and our additional 
appreciation for Chairman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for the 
tremendous work that they do, and the great respect we also have for 
the ranking member and the chairman of the committee, who I see here 
today, Rodney Frelinghuysen.
  Simply stated, this measure would add $6 million to lung cancer 
research under the Defense Health Program.
  In so doing, we would be increasing this amount for this important 
and worthwhile research from $14 million back to the original $20 
million figure that had been appropriated back in 2009.
  In that regard, it is worth noting that were we to factor this for 
inflation, we would have to be asking for $23.5 million to match the 
buying power of $20 million that this would bring us up to today.
  To put my amendment in perspective, a recent study at Walter Reed 
Medical Center found that treating lung cancer in active military 
soldiers and veterans every year costs roughly $564 million, treating 
our veterans.
  According to that same study, our veterans are 75 percent more likely 
to develop some form of lung cancer than those people who do not serve 
in our military.
  Clearly, with some additional research to find cures and better 
treatments for this, there are not only enormous dollars to be saved, 
but more importantly, lives to be saved. That's an important message to 
our veterans in how we value their service and the risks, the great 
risks, that they take in serving and in protecting us.
  So I hope my colleagues would agree that a modest increase in cancer 
research funding to the $20 million figure next year is more than 
reasonable. It's a sound and necessary investment in public dollars, 
and an important message to the men and women who serve in our 
military.
  And make no mistake, those extra funds would make an enormous 
difference in battling lung cancer, which, by the way, takes more lives 
than all of the other cancers combined. So it is a disease that 
obviously, as I said, affects our military, but it kills 159,000 people 
every year.
  As many of you know, my daughter, Katherine, was diagnosed with a 
very advanced stage IV lung cancer some 3 years ago. I thank all of my 
colleagues for their prayers. I would also be remiss if I didn't say 
thank you to the many colleagues on both sides of the aisle, not a day 
goes by but one of you haven't expressed your concern, asked about her 
well-being, and told me of your continued prayers and hopes for 
success. And I am here to tell you she is doing well. We have great 
hope for her in the future, in no small measure due to the prayers, the 
careful thoughts, and the advances in research, so many of which are 
coming down the road, in offering her and so many others so much hope.
  So I hope we can give many others that same great hope through these 
additional research dollars.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I 
have no objections and am prepared to accept it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Gabbard

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment on the table.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chair, since 9/11, an estimated 3.7 million veterans 
and servicemembers may have been exposed to burn pits, a common method 
of disposing of waste during war.
  Now, these burn pits include things like human waste, batteries, 
plastic, damaged equipment all being dumped into a giant pit, doused 
with jet fuel, and torched.
  Much of the waste burned in these pits is toxic and it gets into our 
troops' eyes, mouth, throat, and lungs. I know this is true, because I 
was there and I breathed these toxins in every day.
  These burn pits aren't put somewhere very far away from where our 
troops spend their time. They are usually right next to where they 
live, work, eat, and sleep. Many burn day and night, some burning 
around the clock, 7 days a week.
  Exposure to burn pits can produce serious and potentially life-
threatening health effects, including neurological disorders, rare 
forms of cancer, lung diseases, and more.
  Recently, a widow named Jill Wilkins reached out to my office to 
share her story.
  She told me about her husband, United States Air Force Reserves Major 
Kevin Wilkins, who was an RN and who deployed to Iraq in the summer of 
2006.
  After prolonged exposure to the toxic chemicals from burn pits, when 
he came home, he died from a brain tumor in April of 2008. He was only 
51 years old, leaving behind his wife, Jill, to take care of their two 
children by herself.
  Now, despite the millions of brave young men and women who have been 
exposed to burn pits, people like Major Wilkins, they are continuing to 
be denied their claims and healthcare through the VA.
  The DOD and VA have been hesitant to admit that there is sufficient 
data to quantify this link and to prove the connection between service-
related burn pits exposure and the resulting illnesses that some of our 
troops and veterans are dying from.
  What is most troubling about this is that these burn pits are still 
being used today.
  We cannot continue to repeat the dark stains of our past that we have 
seen in abandoning our Vietnam veterans who have suffered illnesses due 
to their exposure to Agent Orange.
  Even now, I and many other Members of Congress continue to hear from 
Vietnam veterans about their battles with

[[Page H5798]]

the VA to get the benefits and care they need after their exposure to 
Agent Orange.
  Burn pits are the Agent Orange of our generation of veterans. We 
cannot let this generation go ignored, without the care and services 
they desperately need.
  Our troops didn't hesitate to raise their hands and volunteer to 
serve this country and put their lives on the line. We cannot turn our 
backs on them when they return home.
  Passing this amendment authorizes $1 million in burn pits research, 
which takes an important step towards fulfilling our Nation's promise 
to take care of our veterans. We have seen some DOD- and VA-funded 
studies, but we need to do more to get to the point where the VA does 
the right thing.
  We need to pass the Burn Pits Accountability Act that I have 
introduced with my friend and post-9/11 veteran, Congressman Brian 
Mast.
  We know that there is a correlation between burn pit exposures and 
these illnesses. This amendment takes a small step toward continuing 
the research, and serves as a shining light to our post-9/11 veterans 
that they are not alone and that they have not been forgotten. It 
builds on this progress to ensure that every servicemember and veteran 
who was exposed to burn pits gets the care and services that they have 
earned and deserve.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member 
Visclosky for their attention in raising this important issue and in 
allowing these amendments to come to the floor.
  Our veterans care very much to see that Congress is taking action in 
the absence of leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns. The 
Department is currently funding several research projects related to 
the potential health effects of open-air burn pits and burn pit 
exposure, such as pulmonary fibrosis, lung and respiratory issues, and 
metals toxicology.
  I believe this research is important. I don't have any objection to 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Delaney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $8,300,000)''.
       Page 82, line 20, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Delaney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairwoman and the 
ranking member for their support of our veterans and for our servicemen 
and -women. I would also like to thank the cosponsors of this amendment 
with me, Debbie Dingell of Michigan,  Don Young of Alaska, Ann Wagner 
of Missouri, Darren Soto of Florida, and Peter Welch of Vermont, for 
their bipartisan efforts in placing something as important as Fisher 
House Foundation far above politics.
  Fisher House provides 100 percent free lodging for military families, 
allowing families to stay together while their loved ones are being 
taken care of in a VA Hospital or military facility.
  On any given night, up to 1,000 families are staying in one of the 76 
Fisher Houses in districts all across this country, and their need is 
only growing.
  This effort that is the subject of this amendment will help Fisher 
House build new homes and serve more of our military families.
  Fisher House has served over 335,000 families thus far and provided 
$407 million in estimated out-of-pocket savings on lodging and 
transportation to our military families.
  Looking ahead, they have eight houses already under construction and 
have identified 20 more locations in need of their support in their 
pipeline.
  Fisher House is a highly rated nonprofit, having received an A-plus 
rating from CharityWatch and awarded the Independent Charities Seal of 
Excellence.
  Most importantly, it is a beloved institution throughout our military 
and veteran communities.
  This amendment increases Federal support for Fisher House from $5 
million to $10 million. It has strong bipartisan support and is a good 
example of the things we can do if we work together.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this 
program.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. 
Wagner), my friend.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Fisher House Foundation 
amendment No. 13.
  Often, servicemembers must travel hundreds or even thousands of miles 
for medical care.
  For more than 25 years, Fisher Houses have provided a home away from 
home for the family members of those who are receiving treatment at a 
military or VA Medical Center. These houses provide stability, 
convenience, and one less thing to worry about for families as their 
husbands, wives, sons, or daughters undergo treatment.
  Each time I visit the St. Louis Fisher House at Jefferson Barracks, I 
witness firsthand the dedication of the staff and the volunteers who 
assist the families of our veterans and servicemembers.
  An increase in funds will allow the construction of more Fisher 
Houses, providing lodging to thousands of military families. We know 
that a family's love is the best medicine, and good care makes the 
tough days bearable.
  I look forward to casting my vote in support of this important 
foundation. Together, we can make the lives of those who heroically 
serve our country just a little bit easier.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for all of her leadership. I thank 
the gentleman for his cosponsorship and for his yielding me this time.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern to 
provide adequate funding for the Fisher House Foundation. The Fisher 
House Foundation is a nonprofit organization that provides temporary 
lodging for military family members when confronted with the illness or 
hospitalization of their servicemember.
  The bill already includes $5 million for the department to grant to 
the Fisher House Foundation and allows each service to transfer up to 
$11 million for Fisher House operations.
  I am pleased to accept the amendment to provide additional funding 
for the Fisher House, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I want them to have one visual in their minds when they 
think about it. Prior to the Fisher House--which, again, is a public-
private partnership; the government money is leveraged with third-party 
donations--prior to the Fisher House, family members of our veterans 
who were receiving care often camped out in tents on the grounds of VA 
hospitals or other military facilities. The Fisher House has solved 
that problem, which is one of the reasons we should be supporting it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

[[Page H5799]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
Amendment No. 14.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 30, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank Chairwoman Granger and 
Ranking Member Visclosky for their devotion to the men and women of the 
Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our Nation safe.
  My amendment, and I appreciate the opportunity in presenting it, is 
identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted last year to 
the Defense Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2018, H.R. 3219. My 
amendment increases funding for Defense Health Program research and 
development by $10 million. These funds will address the question of 
breast cancer in the United States military.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a breast cancer survivor, and the relief of the 
care and cure is one that you cannot imagine. Just imagine being in the 
United States military and being diagnosed. These funds are important 
to increase that research to help our men and women in the United 
States military.
  The American Cancer Society called several strains of breast cancer a 
particularly aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates. 
In this instance, it is triple negative breast cancer. That is one that 
is deadly, more so than many other types, and I have seen close 
friends, my neighbor, succumb to triple negative breast cancer.
  This increased funding should be and, hopefully, will be utilized to 
do important research in that area. This was evidenced by an article, 
``Fighting a Different Battle: Breast Cancer and the Military.''
  Breast cancer can affect both men and women. The bad news is that 
breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as 
combat. Breast cancer has been just about as difficult to overcome as 
well. More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with 
breast cancer, just between the years 2000 and 2011. According to the 
same study, more are expected as it grows.
  The good news is that we have been working on it and, therefore, much 
progress has been made.
  The Jackson Lee amendment will allow the additional research on, as I 
said, devastating triple negative breast cancer. That research is 
particularly needed since women are joining the armed services in 
increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to leadership.
  With increased age comes increased risk and the incidence of breast 
cancer. Military people, in general, and, in some cases, specifically, 
are at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer, 
according to Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston 
University who works with the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention on military breast cancer issues.
  Dr. Clapp notes that life in the military can mean exposure to a 
witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of 
getting breast cancer.
  So I ask my colleagues to remember that there are many challenges for 
those who serve in the United States military. Health is one of them.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, this bill includes $130 million for the 
peer-reviewed breast cancer research program. I believe this research 
is very worthwhile. I do not have any objection to the gentlewoman's 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the chairwoman for 
acknowledging the importance of the research that is already 
established. I want to reemphasize that, in the midst of breast cancer 
research, there will be a focus on many subtypes, if you will, one of 
them including triple negative breast cancer.
  So with the expansion of women in the military, it is extremely 
important to move forward with this amendment to help ensure that the 
men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom can live 
longer, healthier lives.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member 
Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their 
devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives 
to keep our nation safe.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, 
which is identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted last 
year to the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2018 (H.R. 3219).
  My amendment increases funding for the Defense Health Program's 
research and development by $10 million.
  These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United 
States military.
  As a Member of Congress, a mother, a sister and a spouse, and a 
breast cancer survivor, I feel a special responsibility to do all I can 
to ensure every American can win in the fight against all types of 
breast cancer but especially triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).
  Breast cancer can affect both men and women.
  The bad news is breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women 
in the military as combat.
  Let me say that sentence again.
  Breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military 
as combat.
  More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with 
breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011.
  And according to that same study, more are suspected; it grows.
  The good news is that we have been working on it, and I want to add 
my appreciation to the military.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14, however, will allow for the additional 
research.
  That research is particularly needed since women are joining the 
Armed Services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to 
leadership.
  Within increased age comes increased risk and incidence of breast 
cancer.
  Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at 
an alarming rate, but male service members, veterans and their 
dependents are at risk as well.
  With a younger and generally healthier population, those in the 
military tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians--
including significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast 
cancer is a different story.
  Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are 
at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer, 
according to Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston 
University who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
on military breast cancer issues.
  Dr. Clapp notes that life in the military can mean exposure to a 
witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of 
getting breast cancer.


         statistics on african american women and breast cancer

  In 2013, the American Cancer Society Surveillance and Health Services 
Institute estimated that 27,060 black women would be diagnosed with the 
illness.
  The overall incidence rate of breast cancer is 10 percent lower in 
African American women than white women.
  African American women have a five-year survival rate of 78 percent 
after diagnosis as compared to 90 percent for white women.
  The incidence rate of breast cancer among women under 45 is higher 
for African American women compared to white women.
  Triple Negative Breast Cancer:
  Accounts for between 13 percent and 25 percent of all breast cancer 
in the United States;
  Onset is at a younger age;
  Is more aggressive; and
  Is more likely to metastasize.
  Currently, 70 percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast 
cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.

[[Page H5800]]

  African American women are 3 times more likely to develop triple-
negative breast cancer than White women.
  African-American women have prevalence TNBC of 26 percent vs. 16 
percent in non-African-American women.
  African-American women are more likely to be diagnosed with larger 
tumors and more advanced stages of breast cancer.
  Currently there is no targeted treatment for TNBC exists.
  Some researchers theorize that higher rates of triple negative tumors 
among young African American Women may be explain, to some degree, the 
poor prognosis of breast cancers diagnosed.
  Not knowing if you have Triple Negative Breast Cancer is the biggest 
threat to health.
  Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as 
hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the 
triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted 
treatment.
  There continues to be a need for research funding for biomarker 
selection, drug discovery, and clinical trial designs that will lead to 
the early detection of TNBC and to the development of multiple targeted 
therapies to treat this awful disease.
  The dedication of funding for research into breast cancer is the 
right track, we're on the right road.
  The expansion of women in the military, makes this area of DoD 
research particularly important to addressing the real breast cancer 
risk posed to our women in uniform.
  Today women make up around 15 percent of all service personnel in the 
combined branches of the French military.
  Women are 11 percent of the Army forces, 13 percent for the Navy, 21 
percent of the Air Force and 50 percent of the Medical Corps.
  In 2015, All U.S. military combat positions were opened up to women.
  The fighting capacity of the military is linked to the health and 
wellbeing of women throughout the armed services.
  We can offer another tool in the work to keep the women of the 
military healthy and free of breast cancer through development of test 
that can detect the disease in its earliest stages and treatments that 
increase survival rates should breast cancer be contracted.
  I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member 
Visclosky for shepherding H.R. 6157, the ``Defense Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2019,'' to the floor and for their devotion to the men 
and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation 
safe.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14 increases funding for the PTSD by $5 
million.
  These funds should be used toward outreach activities targeting hard 
to reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in 
underserved urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post-Traumatic 
Stress Disorder (PTSD).
  Mr. Chair, along with traumatic brain injury, PTSD is the signature 
wound suffered by the brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan, 
Iraq, and far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.
  For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it 
is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen 
and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see 
on a daily basis.
  In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can 
obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face.
  Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, 
and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th 
birthday.
  But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the 
stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your 
thoughts and memories.
  And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the 
enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.
  PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war 
veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such 
as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, bombings, or natural 
disasters such as floods or earthquakes.
  People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb 
(especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), 
lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling 
affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become 
violent.
  They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and 
anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult.
  Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts 
during the day and in nightmares when they sleep.
  These are called flashbacks; a person having a flashback may lose 
touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening 
all over again.
  Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD 
also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD.
  These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, 
alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety 
disorders.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14 recognizes that these soldiers are first 
and foremost, human, who live their experiences.
  Ask a veteran of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan about the frequency of 
nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the 
Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14 will help ensure that ``no soldier is 
left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward 
hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are 
homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country.
  I urge all Members to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Lewis of Minnesota). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Clark of Massachusetts

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $14,364,000) (increased by $14,364,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of this bipartisan amendment, which supports the Pentagon's 
FY19 budget request for research and development conducted by the 
Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental, also known as DIUx.
  I am grateful to my colleagues, Representatives Gallagher of 
Wisconsin and Russell of Oklahoma, and to my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Representative Tsongas, for working with me on this 
amendment.
  American technological innovation is widely renowned as the world's 
best. Our private-sector innovators are constantly pushing the envelope 
of the possible, inventing new technologies that revolutionize how 
people live. However, when it comes to national security, we have a 
serious problem.
  Thousands of our startups have a strong desire to contribute to 
national security, but over the past two decades, as our cutting-edge 
innovators have changed the world, government procurement processes 
have failed to change with them. As a result, in critical areas such as 
cybersecurity, our top private-sector innovators have no economically 
viable avenue to pursue government business. The Department of Defense, 
therefore, has no access to them.
  DIUx is the only funding stream in this entire bill that solves this 
problem. Military services and commanders in the field identify 
pressing problems that they need solved and bring them to DIUx. DIUx 
then pairs them with top commanders and top innovators to provide a 
pilot contract to solve their problems. This has resulted in bids from 
more than 650 companies in more than 42 States.
  Most importantly, DIUx is able to solve these problems, in most 
instances, in less than 90 days. This is far more flexible, agile, and 
cost-effective than any other procurement vehicle currently available.
  Just one of DIUx's 71 programs now saves the Air Force 400,000 pounds 
of fuel per day--just one project. That is enough to more than recoup 
DIUx's entire FY18 appropriation several times over.
  If the devastating cuts proposed to this program come to pass, DIUx 
will lose its critical momentum, capabilities, and talent, jeopardizing 
the program's future. If we care about protecting our troops, enhancing 
national

[[Page H5801]]

security, and ensuring efficient use of taxpayer funds, I hope we will 
adopt this amendment, which simply matches the Pentagon's FY19 budget 
requested by DIUx.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may ask how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, the Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental 
is a program that leverages brilliant engineers at places like the 
Silicon Valley or MIT to invent such amazing things as saline cooling 
to save the lives of badly wounded soldiers on the battlefield or 
create improved communications.
  In just the last year, the DIUx program saved the United States Air 
Force hundreds of millions of dollars by replacing a whiteboard 
management system for managing refueling with an integrated app that 
saved millions of pounds of fuel each week, totaling hundreds of 
millions of dollars and, ultimately, billions of savings.
  This never would have happened without DIUx. It pays for itself many 
times over. In fact, we would not have things today like Predator or 
key anti-missile defense systems without it.
  Perhaps some big defense contractors might wish to cut DIUx, but only 
in Washington would we cut a program that integrates Silicon Valley and 
MIT engineers, develops products in months instead of decades, and 
saves billions of dollars. This amendment protects that from happening 
by restoring the $14 million in funding, something it already saved in 
fuel in just a couple of days with the United States Air Force.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, and I thank my colleagues 
for their work on this bipartisan measure. I urge support.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of innovation and 
bringing fresh ideas to the department. I support efforts that will 
deliver promising new technologies and provide our troops with a 
technological edge to prevail. However, I don't support efforts aimed 
at building empires under the guise of innovation.

  The amendment seeks to reverse a justified reduction made by the 
committee to the Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental, DIUx. For fiscal 
year 2019, DIUx proposed to double its budget compared to last year 
without sufficient justification. This proposed increase was aimed at 
doubling the size of the program office, along with significant 
increases for office space and a generous travel budget.
  I need to better understand how DIUx will fit into the department's 
new research and engineering organization and how it will maximize 
innovation for the warfighter before increasing funds for DIUx.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my 
ranking member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  I, too, share her sentiment that we ought to encourage innovation, 
but I join her in opposition to the amendment. I am wary of providing 
funding for an organization within the department that makes 
commitments of almost $1 billion without carefully coordinating some of 
these activities within the department, as happened this past year with 
a cloud computing contract.
  I am also concerned about the fact that the Defense Innovation Unit 
has found only a way, basically, to fund innovative activities in 
limited areas of the country; that is, the East Coast and the West 
Coast, with rarely anything in between.
  I also add my concerns that the Defense Innovation Unit relies on 
Reserve officers to man their organizations when each of the Reserve 
chiefs have advised us that they cannot fill their own ranks.
  So I do agree with the gentlewoman and her opposition, and I 
appreciate her yielding.

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I support efforts to bring 
innovation and new capabilities to the warfighter. However, the DIUx 
unit appears more focused on building its own program office rather 
than delivering capability.
  I do not believe additional funding for DIUx is justified at this 
time. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Crawford

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas, the 
distinguished chair, for her leadership.
  The amendment I am offering will support explosive ordnance disposal 
equipment upgrades and technology enhancements.
  When the Department of Defense canceled the EOD/Low Intensity 
Conflict Program, which formerly developed and delivered capabilities 
commonly required by each services' EOD tactical units, it was done 
without transferring this program and the oversight responsibility on 
EOD research, development, and acquisition to that of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
  It is my understanding that DOD's Combating Terrorism Technical 
Support Office will now absorb this specific mission set within their 
Improvised Device Defeat and Explosives Countermeasures program. This 
program is unique in that it supports the United States Government's 
Interagency Deputies' Technical Support Working Group to combat 
terrorism by using a whole-government approach. Specifically, the 
program leverages the intelligence community, the Departments of 
Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State, as well as State, 
local, and Tribal levels of government.
  There are about 33,000 annual call-outs, approximately 4,500 of which 
are on DOD military munitions. The Improvised Device Defeat and 
Explosives Countermeasures program develops or improves operational 
capabilities to neutralize, render safe, and contain blast 
fragmentation during these emergency response operations and terrorist 
incidents involving use of IEDs in the homeland. Furthermore, it 
produces dual-use capabilities on enhancing lifesaving technologies for 
military tactical EOD units and those of public safety bomb squads 
organized at the State, local, and Tribal levels of government.
  Therefore, I encourage the Director of the Combating Terrorism 
Technical Support Office to appropriately prioritize funding toward 
delivery of these advanced dual-use capabilities in the IED 
countermeasures program used by military tactical EOD units and public 
safety bomb squads.
  In closing, this program is critical to the safety and security of 
America's

[[Page H5802]]

citizens. Military tactical EOD units and public safety bomb squads 
deserve the best tools and equipment we can provide so they are able to 
neutralize, disable, dismantle, render safe, and exploit improvised 
explosive devices and explosive ordnance both at home and abroad. My 
amendment will ensure they receive the equipment upgrades and 
technology enhancements they need.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am 
not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, improvised explosive devices continue to be 
used by terrorists against our forces, which is why the bill includes 
$150 million for technologies to combat terrorism, including 
investments to counter improvised explosives. The additional funds will 
be helpful to develop technologies to help protect our troops.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's dedication to this issue, 
and I also thank him for his previous service in the Army as an 
explosive ordnance disposal technician.
  Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 17 will 
not be offered.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Langevin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $50,000,000) (increased by $50,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Rules Committee for making my 
amendment in order, as well as Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member 
Visclosky for their hard work on this important Defense Appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment with my good friends 
Mr. Correa, Mr. Lieu, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Ratcliffe, and Ms. Stefanik 
in order to support the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program.
  Since 2001, DOD has funded the Information Assurance Scholarship 
Program, or ASP, in order to boost the Nation's cyber workforce through 
scholarship and capacity-building grants. Scholarship recipients are 
required to fulfill a service obligation by working in a cybersecurity 
position at DOD upon graduation.
  This program has been extremely successful, bringing nearly 600 
students into the DOD workforce. However, due to budget constraints, 
the Department reduced funding for the program beginning in 2013 and 
stopped recruiting new students. Now, this program received $7.5 
million in 2005, its peak funding level, but for FY 2017, it received a 
mere $500,000.
  The cybersecurity challenges that we face, Mr. Chairman, are growing 
every day. This scholarship program will help ensure that students are 
encouraged to pursue degrees in cybersecurity-related fields and that 
more of them can then work defending our Nation.
  Across every industry, across the public and private and nonprofit 
sectors, qualified cybersecurity professionals are, indeed, in short 
supply, and the Department of Defense must compete for this very small 
pool of candidates. These funds will assist in alleviating the 
challenges that the Department of Defense is experiencing in recruiting 
and retaining cybersecurity personnel by providing additional 
opportunities to develop a qualified cyber workforce and expanding 
awareness at public educational institutions.
  Mr. Chairman, in last year's National Defense Authorization Act, we 
reinvigorated the funding while simultaneously expanding it to include 
students pursuing associate's degrees so as to tap into a larger 
candidate pool.
  The committee also made in order a similar amendment in last year's 
appropriations bill to ensure the newly reauthorized expanded program 
would be appropriately funded. It was passed by the whole House during 
amendment consideration, and we aim to do the same this year to finally 
get this critical program back off the ground.
  Cybersecurity, Mr. Chairman, is the national security and economic 
security challenge of the 21st century, and every armed conflict today 
and in the future will include a battle in this domain. It is incumbent 
upon Congress to recognize this fact and appropriately support 
USCYBERCOM and our other cyber defenders. All the policies in the 
world, though, are meaningless without personnel to execute them, and 
this amendment makes vital investments in our human capital.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Chair understands that amendments No. 19 and No. 20 will not be 
offered.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Langevin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 32, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I spoke a little bit earlier on the cyber 
scholarship program, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I agree that cybersecurity is a very 
important national security issue. The scholarship program will help in 
attracting and retaining a cyber workforce. I appreciate the 
gentleman's dedication the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her support 
and her work, along with Ranking Member Visclosky's work on the Defense 
Appropriations bill, and in particular their support of the Assurance 
Cyber Scholarship.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) having assumed the chair, Mr. Lewis of Minnesota, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year

[[Page H5803]]

ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________