[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 126 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7693-H7699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5515, NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1027 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1027
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2019 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All
points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2)
one motion to recommit if applicable.
Sec. 2. The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time
before 3 p.m. on Thursday, August 2, 2018, file privileged
reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2019.
Sec. 3. House Resolution 1020 is laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
{time} 0915
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1027 provides for consideration of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 5515, the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.
This NDAA process has once again been a textbook example of how
Congress should work. After extensive hearings in the House and the
Senate, lengthy committee markups, hundreds of amendments, separate
passage in both Chambers, and a conference committee, we have reached
the point of final passage.
This has been a process that has followed regular order and allowed
so many Members to have a role in the process. Here in the House, that
is a testament to Chairman Mac Thornberry, Ranking Member Adam Smith,
and their very capable staffs.
This is the earliest the House has passed the final version of the
NDAA in 41 years, which is a remarkable feat. A considerable amount of
time and effort has been put into this product, and I know I join other
Members of the House in expressing our deep gratitude for their
efforts.
This year's NDAA offers the next steps in our effort to rebuild our
military and reform the Pentagon. I know many of us have been deeply
troubled by the readiness crisis that struck the military over the last
several years. This has resulted in training accidents and failures
that took the lives of our servicemembers.
To reverse that trend, this year's NDAA allows for increased funding
for training, as well as $2.8 billion for the procurement of spare
airplane parts.
In response to recent naval incidents in the Pacific, the NDAA
directs the Navy to review their operational chain of command and
current training plans for surface warfare officers. The strategy of
peace through strength requires us to continue to produce and procure
the best tools and resources possible.
In an effort to build toward President Trump's goal of a 355-ship
Navy fleet, the NDAA authorizes the construction of new ships,
including a Ford-class aircraft carrier, additional Virginia-class
attack submarines, and three littoral combat ships.
Given the range of challenges in the nuclear domain, the NDAA
supports the Nuclear Posture Review's recommendation to pursue a lower-
yield ballistic warhead while also making important investments in our
missile defense programs.
Very important, the NDAA authorizes a 2.6 percent pay raise for our
servicemembers, which is the highest increase in 9 years. This is
critical to recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest.
Additionally, this NDAA focuses on policies specific to Russia,
China, North Korea, and Iran, as well as provisions relating to
nonstate actors and terrorist organizations.
I am also pleased that the conference report contains a compromise
final version of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act.
Congress has come together in a strong bipartisan manner to recognize
the growing threat of countries like China in weaponizing financial
investment, threatening our advanced technologies, and undermining our
defense industrial base.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as
CFIUS, is an interagency body led by the Treasury Department tasked
with reviewing foreign investment for national security concerns.
However, United States law governing CFIUS has not been modernized for
more than a decade, and it is not designed to address today's modern,
evolving threats.
The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act gives CFIUS
much-needed additional authority to address real national security
threats without unduly burdening foreign investment in the American
economy and slowing American economic growth in the process.
I could go on and on about the important reforms and priorities in
this legislation, but these should give you an idea of our focus on
standing up to our adversaries and supporting our servicemen and -
women.
Mr. Speaker, just this past weekend, I was able to spend time with
some of these fine servicemen and -women in the Pacific, where they are
taking part in the RIMPAC naval exercise, the largest in the world.
It is amazing to see the work these young men and women, some of them
very young, do on a daily basis. Whether it is landing planes on an
aircraft carrier or steering a massive warship, these individuals are
asked to carry out incredibly complicated and dangerous tasks, and they
do it exceedingly well.
It is the least we can do to show these courageous and patriotic
Americans we have their backs by passing this NDAA on a strong
bipartisan basis.
We deal with a lot of complicated and, frankly, divisive issues in
this body, but, today, on this issue, I hope we can show, for our
national security and the people who devote so much to keep us safe, we
can rise above the divisiveness of today's politics.
Let's pass the NDAA for the 58th straight year and make sure all our
servicemen and -women know we have their backs. I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting House Resolution 1027 and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Byrne) for the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the work of the conferees this year is to be commended.
I don't want the gentleman from Alabama to faint that I am saying
something nice, but the bottom line is that the conferees did a great
job. They worked hard and fast to get this NDAA conference report to
the floor today. It has been just 2 months since we brought the rule
for the House version of the bill forward for consideration.
[[Page H7694]]
In fact, and I don't get to say this enough, this process has been an
example of how Congress should operate. Members brought their ideas
forward when the original bill was being considered. The Rules
Committee made amendments in order. We had some real debates here on
the floor, and the conference committee has now done its job. That is
how this body is supposed to work.
But under this majority, it is the exception and not the norm. Bills
often come before the Rules Committee without being considered by the
relevant committees first. More than half of the rules that the
majority brings to the floor are unamendable.
All too often, the Rules Committee is where democracy goes to die.
Regular order seems like a thing of the past. It shouldn't be that way,
but, all too often, it is. That is why this process is so notable.
Mr. Speaker, why are we using this process for only things like the
NDAA bill? Why not for other urgent matters, like addressing gun
violence, stabilizing our healthcare market, or reforming our Tax Code?
Wouldn't it be nice if Congress tackled all problems like this?
Now, this process made the NDAA bill better. Many harmful
environmental provisions, thankfully, were removed. That includes
language that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from
listing the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act for a decade.
I am also grateful that the conferees honored the sacrifice of the
atomic veterans. The past three House versions of the NDAA included
language that would award them a service medal honoring their sacrifice
and service, which was carried out in secret and at great personal
cost. It was adopted with near-unanimous votes. But, each time, it has
been dropped in conference.
This year, though, the conferees have agreed to provide the atomic
veterans a certificate of recognition and, in the manager's statement,
have gone further by encouraging the Secretary of Defense to consider
an appropriate medal or award to recognize radiation-exposed
servicemembers.
For the life of me, I can't understand why it is so hard for the
Pentagon to honor these proud veterans with a service medal. Over
three-quarters of atomic vets have already passed away, many
prematurely from health problems directly related to their service to
our Nation. They and their families deserve a medal.
For the Record, I would like to say that I remain committed to making
sure that they receive that recognition, and I hope the chairman and
ranking member will add their voices to encouraging the Secretary of
Defense to do the right thing and confer a medal that recognizes the
courage, the sacrifice, and the service of the atomic veterans.
So, there are good things in this bill. That includes the increase in
pay for our Nation's military. Many members of our caucus will support
this conference report as a result.
Now, you would think the majority would want more bipartisan votes.
It is possible, if they undertake a process like this more often. Let's
bring regular order back from the dead.
Although this bill has been strengthened, Mr. Speaker, I cannot
support it because very real weaknesses remain.
This conference report still endorses President Trump's plan to
develop new low-yield nuclear warheads. A ban on developing these
warheads has been in place for 15 years. Lifting it now could
drastically impact our strategic stability at a time when the President
is already upending our foreign policy.
Now, let's also talk about what is not included here. The conference
report does not have language that would finally force this Congress to
debate its role abroad. That is not because an amendment wasn't
offered. In fact, I put a bipartisan amendment forward with my
colleagues, Representatives Jones, Lee, Garamendi, Kildee, and Welch.
The amendment was pretty simple. It said any escalation of U.S.
troops in Afghanistan over the next fiscal year put forward by the
President or the Pentagon would have to be debated by Congress. We
would have 30 days after a report was issued for Congress to either
disapprove of the escalation or allow it to move forward. That is it.
It wasn't a radical idea, at least not to me or many of my
colleagues. But it must have been to Republican leadership, because
they did what they always do when pressed to pass a new AUMF or to have
legitimate debates on the war in Afghanistan and other wars: They
blocked us from even having a debate on the House floor.
Republicans will apparently try anything to avoid a debate on this
subject. We submitted a similar amendment to the Rules Committee last
year during the NDAA consideration, and the majority advanced an
alternative amendment that called for the administration to release a
report on our strategy in Afghanistan instead.
A study is not a serious attempt at congressional oversight of our
foreign policy. The Trump administration must not have thought so
either, since they never even bothered to send the report to Congress.
It was more than 100 days late. Magically, it appeared shortly after
the House had already debated and approved the NDAA. And, frankly, Mr.
Speaker, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Mr. Speaker, do my Republican friends even care that Congress is
abdicating our responsibilities? We should be debating our role in
Afghanistan. The administration has sent more than 4,000 additional
servicemembers to fight over there in this last year. There are now
more than 12,000 of our constituents there today.
Mr. Speaker, don't my Republican colleagues want to have a say over
whether their constituents are sent to fight abroad? We are 17 years
into this war. There is no end in sight. The least we could do is spend
10 minutes debating our foreign policy on the House floor.
There are reports that the President is frustrated with his Afghan
policy, that he may call for a review of our role there. Well, Mr.
Speaker, shouldn't Congress have a role in that new strategy? Maybe the
Republicans are afraid to take on President Trump. They send angry
tweets and critical press releases sometimes, but when it comes to
actually doing something, they lose their nerve.
Just take ZTE. Many members of the majority were outraged when the
President announced plans to prop up this Chinese tech company.
President Trump tweeted: ``Too many jobs in China lost.'' Apparently,
his policy of ``America First'' quickly became ``China First.''
His move came after the Secretary of Commerce had banned U.S.
companies from exporting any parts to ZTE. President Trump undercut his
own Commerce Secretary, urging him to reverse this ban. It was an
about-face from an administration that has become defined by saying one
thing one day and doing another the next.
Republicans joined Democrats on both sides of the Capitol in pledging
to reimpose the penalties the President reversed. Language banning
government agencies from using or procuring technology made by ZTE were
included in both the House and Senate bills. The Senate had stronger
language, which I was hoping would be included here. If it were, I
think it would pass. But a funny thing happened as this report was
hashed out. Republicans went with the watered down House language
instead.
Mr. Speaker, actual leadership requires standing up and doing
something and going against the President when he is wrong. But this
majority has proven again and again and again that they aren't willing
to do that, no matter what the President says or does.
We saw that after President Trump cozied up to Vladimir Putin in
Helsinki. He stood with a dictator over the American intelligence
community. It was a disgrace, and the majority did nothing.
They even blocked our attempt to get a simple debate on the Quigley
amendment. That would have provided funds to strengthen our election
system against future hacking by bad foreign actors like Russia.
Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with this President? What is wrong with my
friends on other side of the aisle? We should be passing amendments to
protect our election system. We ought to be passing the Engel
resolution, condemning what the President did.
This is already the most closed Congress in history. Most bills that
come to the floor can't even be amended by anybody, Republican or
Democrat.
[[Page H7695]]
{time} 0930
It is ``my way or the highway'' with this majority. That is bad
enough, Mr. Speaker. But now we can't even debate protecting our
democracy, just like we can't debate our military's role abroad.
We have gone from being the people's House to being more like Putin's
House. It is disgusting, quite frankly. The last time I checked, this
was still America, where Congress is supposed to actually debate. Let's
act like it.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about the need for bills to go through the
committee and conference process. That happened here. The NDAA report
was crafted in a bipartisan manner.
I can't vote for the underlying bill for all of the reasons I have
discussed. That includes the lack of an AUMF. But when the process is
better, we should recognize that. For that reason, I will be voting for
this rule. I hope that we consider more bills through a similar
process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman.
I would remind the gentleman that this so-called closed Congress has
passed over 600 bills. Record numbers of bills have been passed by this
Congress. This is a remarkably productive Congress, and all of us
should take pride in the fact that over 80 percent of those bills were
passed in a bipartisan fashion. So we have every reason to be proud of
the work that we have done here not just this year, but last year as
well.
I also want to address what the gentleman had to say about an AUMF.
We, indeed, as a Congress have a role to play in the foreign defense
policy of this country. The bill that underlies this resolution that we
have today is the National Defense Authorization Act. It is several
hundred pages of policy that is set by the Congress. So we are
participating in a very active fashion, both in oversight and in
helping set this policy.
I am very proud of the work that the members, Democrats and
Republicans, in the House Armed Services Committee have done. This bill
shows that Congress has a constitutional role that we are fulfilling.
And I believe the very strong, bipartisan vote we are going to see on
the bill demonstrates that all of us, or at least most of us, the vast
majority of us, feel the same way.
I want to say this very clearly. The young men and women who serve us
every day abroad and put their lives at risk deserve from us not
partisan divisiveness on this day, they deserve our unity. They deserve
to hear from us that we are not going to sit and have some partisan
bickering but that we have their back. If we can't do that on this day,
then we need to all go home this August and reexamine our consciences.
There are other days and other times to debate other issues, but on
this day, let's stand up as one House and as one country for the men
and women who wear the uniform of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Alabama that he
may want to defend a process where the majority of bills that have come
to this floor have come under a process where nobody can offer an
amendment. I think that is undemocratic. I think that goes against what
this House is supposed to be about. It is one of the reasons why so
many of the bills that come through here, quite frankly, are deeply
flawed, because everybody is shut out of the process.
This is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States
of America. Nearly 60 percent of the bills that have come to the floor
have come under closed rules. Now, you expect that in Russia, you
expect that in China or Turkey, but you don't expect that in the
people's House.
It is unbelievable to me that my friends defend this process. When
you throw in bills that don't need a rule, the suspension bills--post
offices and a lot of bills that, quite frankly, are inconsequential--
you can rack up the numbers.
The bottom line is the Rules Committee has become a place where good
ideas are blocked on a regular basis, and not just Democratic ideas,
but a lot of Republican ideas.
I respect the Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats,
enough to be able to say that, if they have good ideas, they ought to
be brought to the floor. They ought not be blocked in the Rules
Committee behind closed doors and never even know why they are blocked.
But that is the pattern here. It has to stop.
Maybe it is going to take an election for it to stop, but this is
unacceptable. I think most people around the country who are paying
attention to what is going on here are fed up.
And just one other thing. When I talk about the need to debate the
war in Afghanistan and these other wars where we put American lives in
jeopardy, that is not partisan bickering. Most of these amendments have
been bipartisan. What we are responding to is many of our constituents
who have been deployed halfway around the world who come back and say:
What the hell are you doing? Do you guys have any idea what is going on
over here? Why aren't you talking about this? Why aren't you debating
it?
We have been in a war for 17 years and we can't even have a debate.
We can't even have 10 minutes on the war in Afghanistan or our growing
involvement in military conflicts around the world. It is outrageous.
You can defend it if you want. It is irresponsible. And the fact that
this Congress won't debate these issues, that is moral cowardice, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed one of the most disgraceful displays
by an American President on foreign soil in our Nation's history when
President Trump refused to stand behind our intelligence community and
to, instead, side with Vladimir Putin. Putin, he sided with Putin.
Then on Tuesday, via Twitter, the President changed his tune and
said, ``I'm very concerned that Russia will be fighting hard to have an
impact in the upcoming election,'' I guess apparently embracing the
intelligence community again. And then he tweeted another tweet,
basically saying that Russia is not involved in meddling in an
election.
I have to tell you, this President is messed up when it comes to the
issue of Russia meddling in our election. I don't know what the
Russians have on him, if anything, but the behavior out of this
President is not normal, and it should concern every single person, no
matter what your party affiliation is.
Russia attacked our country. They meddled in our election. Everybody
knows it. And we have a President of the United States who is going out
of his way to cover it up, to make it seem like it never happened, to
dodge the issue. We cannot count on him to protect our election system;
let's just be honest about that.
We need to step up in a bipartisan way. We need to hold Russia
accountable for its election meddling, and we need to insist that these
attacks on our democracy stop. Russia is not our ally. They are not a
competitor. They are not our friends. We have to start acting like
that.
I am going to ask that if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Engel's and
Representative Connolly's bill, H.R. 6494, the SECURE Our Democracy
Act. Their bill would punish foreign entities who interfered with our
elections, going back to 2015, and punish future attacks.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the White House cannot be counted on to
protect our elections. All they are interested in is protecting the
President. We need to do the right thing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise because we will soon have a chance to vote on
legislation that would punish those who attacked American democracy in
2016
[[Page H7696]]
and would deter anyone who tries to do so in the future.
The bill I introduced with Mr. Connolly, the SECURE Our Democracy
Act, would slap tough sanctions on anyone found to interfere with an
American election from overseas. It goes back to 2015, so it would
include those who tried to put their thumb on the scale in favor of
Donald Trump.
We first introduced this bill in January of 2017, when it was
becoming clear that Russia had waged a cyber warfare campaign against
our election. Our updated version of this bill includes new
congressional oversight provisions.
Why?
Because even if this bill passes, we don't trust the President to do
the right thing, quite frankly. We don't believe he will do what it
takes to protect our democracy, even after his own administration has
told us over and over that Russia is at it again. After standing next
to Vladimir Putin and accepting his lies over the unanimous conclusion
of our intelligence community, how could we?
So when the next vote is called, my friends on the other side of the
aisle have a choice to make. Will they vote to say to Putin, to our
chief adversary, that we won't tolerate his attacks on our democracy,
or will they again cede Congress' oversight role and continue to cover
up for the President, who cozies up to Putin, who sides with him over
our allies, and who continues to deny what everyone else knows is a
fact?
Make no mistake: The next vote is our opportunity to punish the
criminals who interfered in our election, to send a message that there
will be consequences for anyone who does so in the future. After this
vote, every Member will be on the record, letting the world know where
they stand.
So I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: vote to
defeat the previous question. Vote to show Russia and Putin that we
won't stand by while they continue to attack American democracy.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a vote against the previous question is a vote against
this bill, which is there to defend America and support our servicemen
and -women.
Make no mistake about it: You can't change the subject. The subject
is the defense of the country. The subject is standing behind our
servicemen and -women.
Now, let's make this clear. It was under the previous administration
that Russia meddled in our elections, not under this administration. It
was under the previous administration that Russia illegally seized
Crimea. It was under the previous administration that we refused to arm
the Ukrainians, who were simply trying to defend themselves. We are now
arming them. This administration is doing that.
I remember in the Presidential election of 2012, the Republican
nominee for President said that the biggest threat to the United States
of America is Russia, and he was laughed at. They are not laughing now.
This bill provides what we need to have to pushback against Russia,
to arm the people who want to fight against Russia, and to stand with
our servicemen and -women. To try to distract from that with some
debate over a previous question on something that has nothing to do
with defending this country, I wish we wouldn't do that in this House.
But I understand we have to make some partisan points before we leave
here for August, and I a disappointed we are making those partisan
points. We have an opportunity to stand up as one body and as one
nation for our servicemen and -women.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just correct the gentleman on one thing. Voting
against the previous question is not voting against the bill. What it
means is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It means that
we can not only debate and vote on the defense conference report, but
we can also debate Mr. Engel's and Mr. Connolly's bill. The gentleman
is on the Rules Committee. He should know that. If we want to have this
debate, we ought to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
And, by the way, we are talking about defending our country. Russia
attacked us, in case you forgot, and we are trying to protect that from
happening again.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly) to discuss our proposal for the previous question.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I just say to my friend from Alabama, he wraps himself
in the uniform of our brave men and women who serve this country
overseas and here at home as if there is a zero-sum game here. He
either chooses them or he chooses to address the threat from Russia,
but he can't do both. And I say to my friend: You go to those men and
women and explain to them how our President of the United States could
sit next to an adversary--a thug, a killer, someone who interfered in
our election--and explain to them, out fighting for their country, the
Commander in Chief wouldn't do it. You explain to them how that same
Commander in Chief actually opined that maybe Crimea should be given
up.
What are we fighting for? What are our values?
This is relevant. We need to defeat the previous question so that we
can consider a debate about the role of Russia in interfering with the
most sacred thing Americans do: vote.
Our bill would sanction any foreign individual or entity found to
have unlawfully meddled with a Federal election and would bar entry to
this country and freeze U.S.-based assets of anyone involved in such
interference.
{time} 0945
President Trump's performance at the Helsinki Summit with Vladimir
Putin underscores the need for this legislation, the very opposite of
what my friend from Alabama is asserting.
Time and again, the President refuses to acknowledge the unanimous
conclusion of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that that happened;
that Russia was a threat and directly interfered with our 2016
elections.
Mr. Trump's own Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats,
recently said: ``The warning lights are blinking red again. Today, the
digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under
attack.''
That is not some liberal Democrat. That is a former Republican
Senator and the Republican appointee of a Republican President warning
us this is a clear and imminent threat. So this is directly relevant.
Defeating the previous question will allow us to have that discussion
on the floor, because we love our country and we want to have a good
answer to the men and women in uniform, my friend from Alabama keeps on
invoking; that America hasn't given up. We are not going to roll over
and play dead to our adversaries.
We are going to candidly, on a bipartisan basis, acknowledge the
threat to this country. And we are going to resist it, because we
recognize their service and their willingness to put themselves on the
line. Are we, is the question.
I urge the defeat of the previous question and support for the bill
Mr. Engel and I have introduced to try to address this very grave
subject.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle
that today Russia faces more sanctions than they have faced since the
end of the Cold War; more sanctions today than under the previous
administration. This Congress and this President is pushing back
against Russia. I am proud of what we are doing to push back on him,
and we may not be done with that yet. We may need to do more. I stand
ready to do more.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman's proud of the
President's performance in Helsinki, but I assure you, the majority of
Americans were disgusted.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first, thank the
House and Senate conferees for their work. This fiscal year 2019
Defense Authorization Act takes the crucial next steps to rebuild our
military by making greater investments in training,
[[Page H7697]]
equipping, and providing for our forces. This bipartisan bill is
essential to helping our troops prepare and respond to the complex
security challenges we are facing around the world.
But as we authorize the largest budget for defense since World War
II, it is imperative that President Trump lead responsibly so we can
ably defend ourselves and the values we stand for around the world.
That includes: Enhancing U.S. defense posture in Europe and
confronting Russian aggression.
We provide record funding for the European Deterrence Initiative that
deepens our commitment to our NATO allies.
We strengthen our ability to combat ongoing Russian cyber campaigns
that seek to undermine our democracy.
And we prevent the administration from recognizing Putin's illegal
annexation of Crimea.
It requires the President to spend our defense dollars wisely.
We should be focusing on increasing readiness and extending our
warfighting edge, which is why the NDAA increases funding for training
in each service, modernizes range and test facilities and boosts
spending on maintenance and spare parts.
And we in invest in modern equipment that have the capabilities to
confront Russia and China and other emerging threats.
We must also support the men and women who choose to wear the
uniform. That is why we are providing our servicemembers with the
largest pay raise in nearly a decade.
And we are overhauling the Transition Assistance Program to provide
servicemembers better-tailored resources as they prepare to enter
civilian life.
But we must do more to ensure that we extend and preserve the ability
to honorably serve to every person in our armed forces, such as:
The men and women deserving a harassment-free workplace.
The Dreamer promised citizenship.
Or the transgender American who wants to continue serving.
The array of national security threats facing the United States is
more complex and diverse and the strategic environment has never been
more competitive. The Defense Authorization Act gives our military
service components the tools and resources for the United States to
maintain its military advantage, counter adversaries, and defend the
international order that has created a safer and more prosperous world.
Congress has done its job. Now the President must make the tough
choices to implement the national defense strategy and truly safeguard
our national security.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with serious concerns about the missed
opportunity in this legislation to take strong action against the
Chinese firm, ZTE.
Our telecommunications systems are the backbone of our national
security operations, and those systems need to be protected to ensure
the safety of our citizens.
Not only did ZTE violate U.S. sanctions by illegally selling
components to North Korea and Iran, it also paid full bonuses to the
employees who engaged in illegal conduct, and then lied to U.S.
authorities about it.
Instead of sending a strong message to ZTE, the NDAA Conference
Committee stripped language from the Senate bill to ban ZTE from doing
business with all U.S. firms and replaced it with watered-down language
that merely prohibits ZTE from doing business with the U.S. Government.
This effectively gives ZTE a free pass for its past violations, and
prioritizes a foreign company's interests over the security of the
American people. This is wrong. Deal-making with ZTE is bad policy, and
it sends a clear message to our adversaries that America is not willing
to enforce our own sanctions.
Earlier this year, I wrote to Secretary Ross raising my concerns with
reports that the administration was backtracking on its recently
imposed 7-year ban on ZTE. To my dismay, and I think to many others,
the administration lifted the ban.
The Senate-passed version of the bill would have restored the ban in
full. So I am distressed that my colleagues have succumbed to pressure
from the White House and watered down critically needed security
protections.
We are all public servants of the American people. The number one
responsibility we have is to protect and defend them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional
30 seconds.
Ms. ESHOO. We must not make deals with foreign entities that have a
proven history of compromising our telecommunications sector and
treating our laws with disdain. When we know for a fact that a certain
company or country does not have our national interests at heart, we
have no business doing business with them, period.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman that in this bill, ZTE is
prohibited from doing any business with the United States Government,
and any company that does business with the ZTE is prohibited from
doing business with the United States Government.
If we did what she suggested we do, we would have to find some way to
save a billion dollars out of mandatory spending under the Defense
Department. There is very little mandatory spending over at the Defense
Department.
Let me tell you what it is. It is the retirement. It is what we
require people to pay for their TRICARE, the people who have already
served in the armed services. We have to make them pay more money for
their healthcare.
I don't want to penalize those people who have already served our
country. I stand with them. For that reason, I think this bill is
plenty strong against ZTE. I think we have reached a good compromise
here.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Ruiz).
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, the military burns their trash, including
computers, plastic, and medical waste, in open-air burn pits, creating
smoke with toxic chemicals like metals and carcinogens that pose
serious health risks to our troops.
Our servicemembers and veterans are developing severely debilitating
pulmonary diseases, like pulmonary fibrosis and constrictive
bronchiolitis, leaving them oxygen-dependent. And other young veterans
are dying from rare cancers in the brain, pancreas, blood cells, and
other locations.
I am an emergency medicine physician and a public health expert. In
public health and in medicine, it is practice that if there is a high
enough suspicion of a harm that causes a severe enough illness, then we
need to act on that suspicion, remove the harm, and treat the person.
We can't wait 10 or 20 years for the perfect research study. We must
act now. We must do that by simultaneously and immediately addressing
these 4 points: First, stop our troops' exposure to dangerous burn pits
out in the battlefield.
Second, educate doctors, veterans, and servicemembers to help doctors
understand the risks of being exposed to burn pits, and to help
veterans and servicemembers understand the early signs of potential
serious illness so they can get treatment early.
Third, take care of burn pit exposed veterans and servicemembers at
the VA and DOD, and ensure illnesses caused by burn pit exposure are
recognized in their claims for disability benefits.
Fourth, do more research that is needed to identify all the different
health impacts exposure to burn pits can cause.
The conference report for Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense
Authorization Act includes two of my amendments
[[Page H7698]]
that will help address the first 2 points: Stopping the use of burn
pits. And educating veterans and their caregivers about the health
risks that could be connected to exposure to burn pits.
My first amendment directs the Department of Defense to conduct a
feasibility study on ending the use of dangerous burn pits by using
incinerators and other technology.
My second amendment requires the Department of Defense to conduct an
annual education and outreach campaign to veterans exposed to burn pits
and who are qualified to enroll in the burn pit registry.
The burn pit registry will improve our understanding of the different
health effects of exposure to burn pits and help our ability to
communicate with veterans and increase their awareness of subtle
changes in their health so that they could understand the early signs
of potential serious illness.
The Government must acknowledge the dangers of burn pits and the
suffering of burn pit exposed veterans with severe illnesses. The
Government has a responsibility to immediately provide them with the
care and benefits they have earned while defending our freedoms.
I want to thank the conferees and the ranking member and chairman of
the Armed Services Committee for their support of my amendment and for
including these amendments in the final conference report.
Congress must continue to work together to provide solutions for our
veterans and servicemembers exposed to these dangerous chemicals,
toxins, carcinogens, and the smoke of burn pits.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the gentleman's amendments were
included in the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, while I oppose the underlying conference report, for
reasons that I have already articulated, I do support the rule because
it reflects a good process where committees were respected, where the
ranking members were respected. We went through a conference committee,
which is something almost unheard of in this body, and so I think many
of us, myself included, are reasonable when the majority behaves
reasonably.
But the bottom line is, there are a lot of issues that need to be
addressed that aren't being addressed, and they are not being addressed
because the Rules Committee routinely blocks good ideas from coming to
the floor. So the only way we have an opportunity to bring up important
issues is through procedural motions like defeating the previous
question so we can bring up the Engel-Connolly bill, so we could
actually stand up to Russia.
So we are going to vote for the rule. We are asking you to stand up
to Russia. I don't think that that is a bad exchange.
So vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's stand up to Russia
before we go home. Let's do the right thing. Let's show the President
that we have a spine, that we disagree with what he did and we are
going to do the right thing here.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, today we are here to talk about not only defending the
United States of America from all of our adversaries, Russia,
especially, but to stand behind the men and women in uniform. And, yes,
I do associate myself with them.
{time} 1000
I am not one of them, but I am one of their supporters. And I hope
that the vast majority of us in this body will stand up with them and
be their supporters today both on the previous question on the rule and
also on the bill when it comes before the body.
If we really want to push back against Russia, we will stop the
games, and we will pass the rule, and we will pass the bill. That is
how we stand up against Russia. Having a bitter, partisan debate before
we do so only helps our enemies.
Let's stand together on this issue. We will come back after the break
in August and debate the other issues, but let's send a clear message
to those brave young men and women, that we have their back. We can do
that by doing our duty today.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
1027 and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1027 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
6494) to expose and deter unlawful and subversive foreign
interference in elections for Federal office, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 6494.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When
the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of
the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to
ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then
controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or
yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools
[[Page H7699]]
for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and
allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer
an alternative plan.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 183, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 378]
YEAS--226
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--183
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Ellison
Gohmert
Hanabusa
Hudson
Jones
Labrador
Marino
Moore
Pelosi
Rice (NY)
Rokita
Speier
Walz
{time} 1025
Ms. WILSON of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. CHENEY and Mr. MacARTHUR changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________