[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 5, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7840-H7843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          EMBASSY SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 2019

  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 4969) to improve the design and construction of 
diplomatic posts, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4969

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Embassy Security 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2019''.

     SEC. 2. STANDARD DESIGN IN CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Department of State's Bureau of Overseas Building 
     Operations (OBO) or successor office should give appropriate 
     consideration to standard embassy design, in which each new 
     embassy and new consulate starts with a standard design and 
     keeps customization to a minimum.
       (b) Consultation.--The Secretary of State shall, in 
     consultation with the appropriate congressional committees, 
     carry out any new embassy compound project or new consulate 
     compound project that is in the design phase or pre-design 
     phase as of the date of the enactment of this Act and that 
     utilizes a non-standard design. The Secretary shall provide 
     such committees, for each such project, the following 
     documentation:
       (1) A comparison of the estimated full lifecycle costs of 
     the project at issue to the estimated full lifecycle costs of 
     such project if such project were to use a standard embassy 
     design.
       (2) A comparison of the estimated completion date of such 
     project to the estimated completion date of such project if 
     such project were to use a standard embassy design.
       (3) A comparison of the security of such completed project 
     to the security of such completed project if such completed 
     project were to use a standard embassy design.
       (4) A justification for the Secretary's selection of a non-
     standard design over a standard embassy design for such 
     project.
       (5) A written explanation if any of the documentation 
     necessary to support the comparisons and justification, as 
     the case may be, described in paragraphs (1) through (4) 
     cannot be provided.

     SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States that the Bureau of 
     Overseas Building Operations of the Department of State or 
     its successor office shall continue to balance functionality 
     and security with accessibility as defined by guidelines 
     established by the United States Access Board in constructing 
     embassies and consulates and shall ensure compliance with the 
     Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 to the fullest extent 
     possible.

     SEC. 4. CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION TRANSPARENCY.

       (a) In General.--Section 118 of the Department of State 
     Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017 (22 U.S.C. 304) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``annual report on 
     embassy construction costs'' and inserting ``quarterly report 
     on overseas capital construction projects''; and
       (2) by amending subsections (a) and (b) to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this subsection and every 90 days 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a comprehensive report regarding all 
     ongoing overseas capital construction projects and major 
     embassy security upgrade projects.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following with respect to each ongoing 
     overseas capital construction project and major embassy 
     security upgrade project:
       ``(1) The initial cost estimate as specified in the 
     proposed allocation of capital construction and maintenance 
     funds required by the Committees on Appropriations for Acts 
     making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign 
     operations, and related programs.
       ``(2) The current cost estimate.
       ``(3) The value of each request for equitable adjustment 
     received by the Department of State to date.
       ``(4) The value of each certified claim received by the 
     Department of State to date.
       ``(5) The value of any usage of the project's contingency 
     fund to date and the value of the remainder of the project's 
     contingency fund.
       ``(6) An enumerated list of each request for adjustment and 
     certified claim that remains outstanding or unresolved.
       ``(7) An enumerated list of each request for equitable 
     adjustment and certified claim that has been fully 
     adjudicated or that the Department has settled, and the final 
     dollar amount of each adjudication or settlement.
       ``(8) The date of estimated completion specified in the 
     proposed allocation of capital construction and maintenance 
     funds required by the Committees on Appropriations not later 
     than 45 days after the date of the enactment of an Act making 
     appropriations for the Department of State, foreign 
     operations, and related programs.
       ``(9) The current date of estimated completion.''.
       (b) Initial Report.--The first report required under 
     subsection (a) of section 118 of the Department of State 
     Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017 (as amended by this 
     section) shall include an annex regarding all overseas 
     capital construction projects and major embassy security 
     upgrade projects completed during the 10-year period ending 
     on December 31, 2018, including, for each such project, the 
     elements specified in subsection (b) of such section 118 (as 
     amended by this section).

     SEC. 5. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE INFORMATION.

       (a) Deadline for Completion.--The Secretary of State shall 
     complete by October 1, 2020, all contractor performance 
     evaluations required by subpart 42.15 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation.
       (b) Prioritization System.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall 
     develop a prioritization system for clearing the current 
     backlog of required evaluations referred to in subsection 
     (a).
       (2) Elements.--The system required under paragraph (1) 
     should prioritize such evaluations as follows:
       (A) Project completion evaluations should be prioritized 
     over annual evaluations.
       (B) Evaluations for relatively large contracts should have 
     priority.
       (C) Evaluations that would be particularly informative for 
     the awarding of government contracts should have priority.
       (c) Briefing.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall brief the 
     appropriate congressional committees on the Department of 
     State's plan for completing all evaluations by October 1, 
     2020, and the prioritization system developed pursuant to 
     this section.
       (d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) contractors deciding whether to bid on Department of 
     State contracts would benefit from greater understanding of 
     the Department as a client; and
       (2) the Department should develop a forum through which 
     contractors can rate the Department's project management 
     performance.

     SEC. 6. GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR NEW EMBASSIES AND CONSULATES.

       (a) In General.--For each new embassy compound project 
     (NEC) and new consulate compound project (NCC) in or not yet 
     in the design phase as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing, and 
     Innovation of the Department of State shall project growth 
     over the estimated life of the facility at issue using all 
     available and relevant data, including the following:
       (1) Relevant historical trends for Department personnel and 
     personnel from other agencies represented at the NEC or NCC 
     that is to be constructed.
       (2) An analysis of the tradeoffs between risk and the needs 
     of United States Government policy conducted as part of the 
     most recent Vital Presence Validation Process, if applicable.
       (3) Reasonable assumptions about the strategic importance 
     of the NEC or NCC, as the case may be, over the life of the 
     building at issue.
       (4) Any other data that would be helpful in projecting the 
     future growth of NEC or NCC.
       (b) Other Agencies.--Each Federal agency represented at an 
     embassy or consulate shall provide to the Department of 
     State, upon request, growth projections for the personnel of 
     such agency over the estimated life of such embassy or 
     consulate, as the case may be.
       (c) Basis for Estimates.--The Department of State shall 
     base growth assumption for all NECs and NCCs on the estimates 
     required under subsections (a) and (b).
       (d) Congressional Notification.--Any congressional 
     notification of site selection for a NEC or NCC submitted 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act shall include the 
     growth assumption used pursuant to subsection (c).

     SEC. 7. LONG-RANGE PLANNING PROCESS.

       (a) Plans Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter for five 
     years, the Secretary of State shall develop--
       (A) a comprehensive six-year Long-Range Overseas Buildings 
     Plan (LROBP) documenting the Department of State's overseas 
     building program for the replacement of overseas diplomatic 
     facilities taking into account security factors under the 
     Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 
     and other relevant statutes and regulations, as well as 
     occupational safety and health factors pursuant to the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and other relevant 
     statutes and regulations, including environmental factors 
     such as indoor air quality that impact employee health and 
     safety; and
       (B) a comprehensive six-year plan detailing the 
     Department's long-term planning for the

[[Page H7841]]

     maintenance and sustainment of completed facilities, known as 
     a Long-Range Overseas Maintenance Plan (LROMP), which takes 
     into account security factors under the Secure Embassy 
     Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 and other 
     relevant statutes and regulations, as well as occupational 
     safety and health factors pursuant to the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act of 1970 and other relevant statutes and 
     regulations, including environmental factors such as indoor 
     air quality that impact employee health and safety.
       (2) Initial report.--The first plan developed pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall also include a one-time status report 
     on existing small diplomatic posts and a strategy for 
     establishing a physical diplomatic presence in countries in 
     which there is no current physical diplomatic presence. Such 
     report, which may include a classified annex, shall include 
     the following:
       (A) A description of the extent to which each small 
     diplomatic post furthers the national interest of the United 
     States.
       (B) A description of how each small diplomatic post 
     provides American Citizen Services, including data on 
     specific services provided and the number of Americans 
     receiving services over the previous year.
       (C) A description of whether each small diplomatic post 
     meets current security requirements.
       (D) A description of the full financial cost of maintaining 
     each small diplomatic post.
       (E) Input from the relevant chiefs of mission on any unique 
     operational or policy value the small diplomatic post 
     provides.
       (3) Updated information.--The annual updates of the plans 
     developed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall highlight any 
     changes from the previous year's plan to the ordering of 
     construction and maintenance projects.
       (b) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) Submission of plans to congress.--Not later than 60 
     days after the completion of the LROBP and the LROMP, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit such plans to the appropriate 
     congressional committees.
       (2) Reference in budget justification materials.--In the 
     budget justification materials submitted to the appropriate 
     congressional committees in support of the Department of 
     State's budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the 
     budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code), the plans specified in the LROBP and 
     LROMP shall be referenced to justify funding requested for 
     building and maintenance projects overseas.
       (3) Form of report.--The plans required to be submitted 
     under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form 
     but may include classified annexes
       (c) Small Diplomatic Post Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``small diplomatic post'' means any consulate that has 
     employed five or fewer United States Government employees on 
     average over the 36 months before the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 8. VALUE ENGINEERING AND RISK ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Federal departments and agencies are required to use 
     value engineering (VE) as a management tool, where 
     appropriate, to reduce program and acquisition costs pursuant 
     to OMB Circular A-131, Value Engineering, dated December 31, 
     2013.
       (2) OBO has a Policy Directive and Standard Operation 
     Procedure, dated May 24, 2017, on conducting risk management 
     studies on all international construction projects.
       (b) Notification Requirements.--
       (1) Submission to authorizing committees.--The proposed 
     allocation of capital construction and maintenance funds that 
     is required by the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than 45 days 
     after the date of the enactment of an Act making 
     appropriations for the Department of State, foreign 
     operations, and related programs shall also be submitted to 
     the appropriate congressional committees.
       (2) Requirement to confirm completion of value engineering 
     and risk assessment studies.--The notifications required 
     under paragraph (1) shall include confirmation that the 
     Department of State has completed the requisite VE and risk 
     management studies described in subsection (a).
       (c) Reporting and Briefing Requirements.--The Secretary of 
     State shall provide to the appropriate congressional 
     committees upon request--
       (1) a description of each recommendation from each study 
     described in subsection (a) and a table detailing which 
     recommendations were accepted and which were rejected; and
       (2) a report or briefing detailing the rationale for not 
     implementing recommendations made by VE studies that may 
     yield significant cost savings to the Department of State, if 
     implemented.

     SEC. 9. BUSINESS VOLUME.

       Subparagraph (E) of section 402(c)(2) of the Omnibus 
     Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 
     4852(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``in 3 years'' and 
     inserting ``cumulatively over 3 years''.

     SEC. 10. EMBASSY SECURITY REQUESTS AND DEFICIENCIES.

       The Secretary of State shall provide to the appropriate 
     congressional committees, upon request, information on 
     security deficiencies at United States diplomatic posts, 
     including--
       (1) requests made over the previous year by United States 
     diplomatic posts for security upgrades; and
       (2) significant security deficiencies at United States 
     diplomatic posts that are not operating out of a new embassy 
     compound or new consulate compound.

     SEC. 11. OVERSEAS SECURITY BRIEFINGS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of State shall revise the Foreign 
     Affairs Manual to stipulate that the Bureau of Diplomatic 
     Security of the Department of State shall provide a security 
     briefing or written materials with up-to-date information on 
     the current threat environment in writing or orally to all 
     United States Government employees traveling to a foreign 
     country on official business. To the extent practicable, such 
     briefing or written materials shall be provided to traveling 
     Department employees via teleconference prior to their 
     arrival at a post.

     SEC. 12. CONTRACTING METHODS IN CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Delivery.--Except in cases in which the Secretary of 
     State determines that such would not be appropriate, the 
     Secretary shall make use of the design-build project delivery 
     system at diplomatic posts that have not yet received design 
     or capital construction contracts as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Notification.--Not later than 15 days after any 
     determination to make use of a delivery system other than 
     design-build in accordance with subsection (a), the Secretary 
     of State shall notify the appropriate congressional 
     committees in writing of such determination, including the 
     reasons therefor.
       (c) Performance Evaluation.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     report to the appropriate congressional committees regarding 
     performance evaluation measures in line with GAO's 
     ``Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' 
     that will be applicable to design and construction, lifecycle 
     cost, and building maintenance programs of the Bureau of 
     Overseas Building Operations of the Department of State.

     SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated $2,314,474,000 for 
     fiscal year 2019 for the purposes of the ``Embassy Security, 
     Construction, and Maintenance'' account of the Department of 
     State, of which $1,549,015,000 is authorized to be 
     appropriated for the costs of worldwide security upgrades.

     SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) in the House of Representatives--
       (i) the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and
       (ii) the Committee on Appropriations; and
       (B) in the Senate--
       (i) the Committee on Foreign Relations; and
       (ii) the Committee on Appropriations.
       (1) Design-build.--The term ``design-build'' means a method 
     of project delivery in which one entity works under a single 
     contract with the Department of State to provide design and 
     construction services.
       (2) Non-standard design.--The term ``non-standard design'' 
     means--
       (A) a design for a new embassy compound project or new 
     consulate compound project that does not utilize a 
     standardized embassy design for the structural, spatial, or 
     security requirements of such embassy compound or consulate 
     compound, as the case may be; or
       (B) a new embassy compound project; or new consulate 
     compound project that does not utilize a design-build 
     delivery method.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous materials in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make this observation for my colleagues. The U.S. 
Department of State operates more than 270 diplomatic posts around the 
world, often in difficult and sometimes very, very hostile 
environments. These embassies and consulates project American power and 
reflect our values. They protect the lives of the Americans who work in 
and visit those embassies every day. We owe it to the American people 
and those who serve us overseas to build the most secure, effective, 
and efficient embassies and consulates that we possibly can.
  That is why I want to thank Chairman Mike McCaul, the author of this

[[Page H7842]]

bill, who is with us. Each day, there are thousands of brave Americans 
who serve our country at our embassies and consulates overseas. These 
facilities are our outposts for democracy. While our diplomats serve 
overseas, it is our job to ensure that they have the resources and 
support they need. This bill will do just that, by authorizing critical 
resources for embassy security, construction, and maintenance; 
enhancing worldwide security protection; and lastly, improving 
oversight of embassy design and construction of these consulates and 
embassies.
  The threats facing our embassies and diplomats overseas are real. We 
need to respond. The reported sonic attacks against our diplomats 
serving in Havana--and Canadian diplomats serving there, too, as you 
will recall--serve as a stark reminder of the real and complex security 
challenges they face on a daily basis. Yet, the last time Congress 
authorized resources for enhanced embassy security was immediately 
after al-Qaida bombed the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es 
Salaam, Tanzania. Over 220 people were killed and 4,000 others were 
injured in these attacks.
  On August 7, we solemnly recognized the 20th anniversary of those 
cowardly attacks. Thus, we must strengthen our resolve to do everything 
within our power to prevent another Nairobi or Dar es Salaam attack by 
constructing the safest, most secure, and most appropriate diplomatic 
posts around the world. That starts with this bill, which, if enacted, 
will be the first embassy security authorization in 15 years.
  Since the East African Embassy bombings, the State Department has 
used several different approaches to design and construct new posts 
quickly and efficiently. This is no small task, but what has become 
clear is that effective congressional oversight of these projects is 
essential to ensuring their success.
  That is why this bill promotes efficient contracting methods, ensures 
the facilities meet security and safety standards, and engages with the 
State Department in an effective, long-range planning process for the 
new projects.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4969, which will 
improve the security, effectiveness, and efficiency of our embassies 
and consulates.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, and let me thank Mr. 
McCaul and Ms. Kelly, both members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, 
for authoring this important legislation and Chairman Royce for 
bringing it to the floor.
  One of the most important things that we deal with on our committee 
is protecting the lives of the brave American citizens working at our 
embassies and consulates abroad. This legislation will help us improve 
the way we provide embassy security.
  This bill would also authorize the embassy security, construction, 
and maintenance account for the next year at $2.3 billion, the same 
level appropriated for the account this year.
  Now, what has me concerned is the Trump administration has asked 
Congress to slash embassy security by $700 million. That just isn't 
right.
  Mr. Speaker, the clearest indication of an administration's 
priorities is its annual budget. Frankly, it is astounding to me that 
the Trump administration has proposed such massive cuts to embassy 
security funding for 2 years in a row.
  On the campaign trail, President Trump spent a lot of time blaming 
Secretary Clinton for the tragic attacks on our consulate in Benghazi. 
He did so with little regard for the facts. Secretary Pompeo, as a 
Member of this body, especially during the time of the absurd Benghazi 
Select Committee, expressed a great deal of outrage over the handling 
of diplomatic security. Now they have tried to cut funding for embassy 
security at every opportunity.
  My message for them is simple: There is no cost too high to protect 
the lives of our diplomats and their families. I wish the President and 
the Secretary understood that.
  Fortunately, Congress has the last word on these issues. We have come 
together in a bipartisan way for the past 2 years and rejected 
President Trump's draconian cuts to embassy security funding. This bill 
represents another rejection of the Trump administration's dangerous 
proposal.
  Additionally, I would like to highlight two provisions in the bill. 
The first requires that all U.S. Government employees traveling abroad 
on official business receive a written or oral security briefing from 
the State Department on potential threats. This is a commonsense 
measure, and it is, honestly, bizarre that it isn't already required.
  Second, I also want to thank Mr. McCaul and Ms. Kelly for including 
language that requires the State Department to provide our committee 
with a strategy for establishing a physical diplomatic presence in 
countries in which we currently have no physical diplomatic presence.
  Lastly, I strongly support a universal approach to U.S. 
representation abroad, and I continue to be disappointed that we have 
no embassies in several countries in the Eastern Caribbean where 
Venezuela, Cuba, and others are present and active. Being absent 
significantly weakens U.S. leadership in the Caribbean and elsewhere 
around the globe.
  Finally, let me say, while I am pleased that we are advancing this 
legislation, I am disappointed that it is moving as a standalone bill 
and not as it was originally intended, as the title of our committee's 
State Department authorization bill. Given the chairman's hard work on 
the State Department authorization bill, I am sure that the gentleman 
shares my concern. I hope that we can breathe new life into the 
legislative effort by the end of this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for 
mentioning the State Department authorization. We are still working on 
that measure. We hope to move that.
  In the interim, though, the ability to move on the floor now with the 
embassy security measure is important.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
McCaul), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, of course, 
a senior member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and he is the 
author of this bill.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bill, the 
Embassy Security Authorization Act.
  Embassies are really the physical representation of the United States 
abroad. An American Embassy is the means in which the United States 
conducts its foreign policy and advances our interests around the 
world. Therefore, protecting our embassies and diplomats should be our 
number one priority. That is why my bill authorizes over $2.3 billion 
for embassy security.
  If enacted into law, this would be the first embassy security 
authorization in 15 years. Furthermore, my bill makes critical reforms 
in how we build future embassies and think about our security.
  In 1998, we had to reassess our embassy security when terrorists, at 
the direction of Osama bin Laden, bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania, killing over 220 people and injuring 4,000 more. In 
retrospect, these attacks foreshadowed bin Laden's intentions to attack 
America. At the time, it forced us to reassess how we go about building 
our embassies and consulates.
  A year later, Congress adopted a standard embassy design for our 
missions abroad. This design improved security, expedited construction, 
and saved money. However, recently, we have deviated from the standard 
embassy design in favor of projects prioritizing aesthetics.
  Our embassies constantly face threats from hostile actors, even in 
friendly and allied countries. Our embassies are extensions of the 
homeland, and we must treat them as such. To that end, my bill would 
require the State Department to provide Congress with justification 
should an embassy or consulate project not use a standard design.
  While I appreciate the goal of displaying American might through a 
striking embassy design, we must prevent a repeat of Kenya and 
Tanzania. My bill, with the $2.3 billion authorization and standard 
design reforms, is a good step forward towards achieving that balance.

[[Page H7843]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank Ms. Kelly for her leadership on 
this issue, as well as Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for 
their work on this important piece of legislation.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will close by again thanking Chairman Royce for bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  We have no greater duty on our committee than to protect Americans 
serving abroad. I am very pleased that we are making several essential 
fixes in our approach to embassy security in this legislation and 
authorizing the embassy security, construction, and maintenance at a 
robust level.
  We live in a dangerous time, and the Trump administration's budget 
would put our diplomats at even greater risk than what they have 
already faced on a daily basis, so I am glad that the House is stepping 
in to do what is needed.
  Finally, let me say again, while I am pleased this bill is moving 
forward, I don't believe the window has closed on getting a 
comprehensive State Department authorization bill to the President's 
desk, and I continue to stand ready to work with the chairman to do 
just that.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the chairman's motion; I urge all Members to 
do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, America's embassies obviously are forward operating 
bases for our democracy, for our system. The brave men and women who 
serve at those posts represent our country on a daily basis and 
represent them often in a difficult and increasingly dangerous 
environment.
  As we have tragically seen before, diplomatic posts overseas are 
often the first and easiest targets our enemies choose to attack. 
Importantly, this legislation will improve the security, the 
functionality, and the efficiency of our embassies and our consulates 
through enhanced oversight and better management of the construction of 
new diplomatic facilities.
  So, again, I want to thank Chairman Mike McCaul of Texas, and I want 
to thank Representative Robin Kelly, as well as Ranking Member Engel 
and the many members of the committee from both sides of the aisle who 
have worked extensively on this important piece of legislation.
  Our embassies project American power. They do reflect our values. We 
owe it to our diplomats and the American people to build the best 
embassies possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 4969, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________