[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 102 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4710-H4732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 436 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. 2740.
  Will the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1509


                     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. 2740) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, 
with Ms. Adams (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
June 13, 2019, amendment No. 5 printed in part A of House Report 116-
111 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rouda) had been 
disposed of.


      Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Visclosky of Indiana

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
436, as the designee of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I 
offer amendments en bloc, which are at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 
11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, 42, 
46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 62 printed in part A of 
House Report 116-111, offered by Mr. Visclosky of Indiana:


             Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Stewart of Utah

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $200,000)''.
       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $200,000)''.


             Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

       Page 223, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $8,500,000)''.
       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,500,000)''.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

       Page 223, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 248, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 249, line 1, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.


          Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Eshoo of California

       Page 247, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,500,000)''.
       Page 247, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $9,500,000)''.


          Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Eshoo of California

       Page 223, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 248, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 249, line 1, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.


          Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

       Page 217, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000) (reduced by $2,000,000)''.


        Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Langevin of Rhode Island

       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 248, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 249, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 249, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

       Page 228, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 228, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.


        Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina

       Page 246, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,800,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,800,000)''.


          Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Walberg of Michigan

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be made available to the Taliban.


         Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Schweikert of Arizona

       Page 246, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Carson of Indiana

       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.


            Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Barr of Kentucky

       Page 222, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 226, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 227, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.


       Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island

       Page 223, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,500,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

[[Page H4711]]

  



          Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mrs. Dingell of Michigan

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,700,000)''.
       Page 300, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Bera of California

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 233, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.


        Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Moulton of Massachusetts

       Page 222, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,300,000)''.
       Page 222, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,300,000)''.


        Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Moulton of Massachusetts

       Page 251, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 251, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 251, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 251, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Emmer of Minnesota

       Page 223, line 4, insert ``(reduced by $3,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 247, line 17, insert ``(increased by $3,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.


            Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Allen of Georgia

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Kildee of Michigan

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $16,000,000)''.
       Page 228, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 229, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 230, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


         Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Panetta of California

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 246, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.


         Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Carbajal of California

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 222, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


         Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Carbajal of California

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 246, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.


         Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. O'Halleran of Arizona

       Page 246, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

       Page 222, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.


         Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Brindisi- of New York

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 247, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


        Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Pappas of New Hampshire

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.


        Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Pappas of New Hampshire

       Page 246, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $2,500,000)''.


         Amendment No. 57 Offered by Ms. Sherrill of New Jersey

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.


         Amendment No. 58 Offered by Ms. Sherrill of New Jersey

       Page 246, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 246, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


       Amendment No. 62 Offered by Ms. Torres Small of New Mexico

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in 
order by the rule, and they have been agreed to by both sides. They 
improve the bill. I support the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, and I thank 
the Defense Subcommittee chairman for working with our side to include 
many amendments important to our Members. The chairman has been a great 
partner and has been very fair throughout this process.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, let me thank the chair of the Defense 
Subcommittee and ranking member of the subcommittee as well.
  I am delighted that my amendment No. 12 has been made in order and 
that we will have an opportunity to save and improve the lives of many 
women around the world.
  My amendment provides flexibility for the Secretary of Defense to 
allocate resources needed to provide technical assistance by U.S. 
military women to military women in other countries combating violence 
as a weapon of war, terrorism, human trafficking, and narcotics 
trafficking to ameliorate their impact on women and girls around the 
globe.
  Madam Chair, the most vulnerable people in vulnerable nation-states 
are women and girls and women and children. That is both in terms of 
sexual violence and domestic violence, and also in terms of the denial 
of access to education.
  As the co-chair of the Congressional Afghanistan Caucus, I am 
reminded of the aftermath of the Afghan war. As we began to write the 
constitution, we thought we had made progress. But the Taliban, after a 
period of time, began to burn the schools that were designated for 
girls only.
  This amendment allows women in the military of these respective 
countries that are prone to hostilities, violence, and disparate 
treatment of women and girls to be able to work with our women in the 
United States military and be able to be trained on the issues of 
fighting terrorism, human trafficking, and narcotics trafficking.
  According to a UNICEF report, rape, torture, and human trafficking by 
terrorist and militant groups have been employed as a weapon of war 
affecting over 20,000 women and girls, and those numbers are going up.
  My amendment will curb terrorism abroad by making available American 
technical and military expertise to militaries in other countries, like 
Nigeria, who are combating violent jihadists. Boko Haram, of course, 
was at the center of taking the Chibok girls, and it is important to be 
able to utilize these activities.
  Madam Chair, I include in the Record ``U.S. Special Operations 
Command's HEROs Combat Human Trafficking'' and ``The Role of the 
Military in Combating Human Trafficking: A South African Perspective.''

                     [From DoD News, Jan. 4, 2018]

    U.S. Special Operations Command's Heros Combat Human Trafficking

                          (By Shannon Collins)

       Washington.--January is National Slavery and Human 
     Trafficking Prevention Month, and the Defense Department has 
     teams who work year-round to combat these crimes worldwide.
       The Human Exploitation Rescue Operative, or HERO, Child-
     Rescue Corps is a program developed by U.S. Special 
     Operations Command, Warrior Care Program-Career Transition, 
     the National Association to Protect Children and U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Army Col. Kimberly 
     Moros, chief of SOCOM's career transition initiatives.
       ``The HERO Child-Rescue Corps Program is designed for 
     wounded, injured and ill transitioning service members and 
     veterans who receive training in high-tech computer forensics 
     and law enforcement skills to assist federal agents in the 
     fight against online child sexual exploitation,'' she said. 
     ``Upon successful completion of the program, HERO interns 
     will have the knowledge, skills and experience to apply for 
     careers with federal, state and local police agencies and 
     other organizations in the field of computer forensics.''

[[Page H4712]]

       Since 2013, more than 130 veterans and transitioning 
     service members have entered the HERO program. Of the 
     successful graduates, 74 have been offered careers in federal 
     law enforcement and another 31 are in internships, Moros 
     said.
       ``HEROs and HERO interns now make up over 25 percent of the 
     Homeland Security computer forensics workforce,'' said Robert 
     Kurtz, unit chief for HERO at Homeland Security 
     Investigations.


                           Human Trafficking

       ``Human trafficking includes using force, fraud or coercion 
     to compel a person to provide labor, services or sex. It's a 
     violation of basic human rights,'' said Linda Dixon, DOD 
     Combating Trafficking in Persons Office Program Manager. 
     ``Combating trafficking in persons is a duty that DOD takes 
     seriously as we do in other situations that bring harm to our 
     nation. It is a global concern, and our goal is to educate 
     every member of DOD on how to recognize and report human 
     trafficking in the U.S. as well as around the world.''
       The three most common forms of trafficking, according to 
     DOD's Combating Trafficking in Persons office, are forced 
     labor, sex trafficking, and child soldiering.
       Moros said the idea behind the HERO Corps is a simple one.
       ``When it comes to hunting those who prey on the innocent, 
     who better than our nation's most highly trained military 
     veterans?'' she said. ``Much of today's human trafficking and 
     child sexual exploitation is technology facilitated. 
     Offenders utilize the internet and digital technologies to 
     coordinate their activity, advertise, share information and 
     hide evidence. HEROs receive training in counter-child 
     exploitation as well as digital forensics and victim 
     identification. And they are then embedded with federal law 
     enforcement.''
       She said the HERO Child-Rescue Corps saves children in 
     several ways. ``As law enforcement first responders, they are 
     at every crime scene, searching for critical clues that might 
     provide evidence for an arrest or to find a victim,'' Moros 
     said.
       Back at the forensic lab, the HERO is the lead digital 
     investigator, searching out clues that can lead to organized 
     criminal rings, evidence of sexual assault or production of 
     child abuse imagery, she said.
       ``In many cases, it has been the relentless focus and 
     military mindset that has allowed HEROs to go beyond the 
     digging that might be done in traditional law enforcement to 
     find a victim,'' she added.
       Kurtz said federal law enforcement is just beginning to 
     track rescues. In 2016, Homeland Security Investigations 
     identified and rescued 820 known child victims from sexual 
     exploitation.
       ``But the real number is undoubtedly many times greater,'' 
     Moros said. ``As a major segment of the digital forensic 
     workforce, and one especially dedicated to combating child 
     sexual exploitation and trafficking, they [HEROs] have been 
     instrumental in working hundreds of those cases.''
  
                                  ____

                                  

   The Role of the Military in Combating Human Trafficking: A South 
                          African Perspective

             (By Nina Mollema, University of South Africa)


                                Abstract

       Human trafficking is a complex and diverse crime affecting 
     both individuals and countries across the world. As a 
     significant facet of transnational organised crime and one of 
     the most lucrative criminal enterprises globally, human 
     trafficking was ranked as the second most profitable crime 
     around the world in 2015, making it the fastest-growing 
     source of revenue for organised criminal operations 
     internationally. In 2015, South Africa implemented 
     comprehensive antitrafficking legislation. Before such 
     legislation was enacted, the South African government also 
     ratified several international and regional human rights 
     instruments in terms of which specific duties are imposed 
     upon the state to combat and punish the crime effectively, 
     including the protection of the rights of victims. The focus 
     of the study on which this article reports, is the desired 
     role of the military in combating human trafficking in South 
     Africa. In 2004, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 
     (NATO) adopted a policy on combating trafficking in human 
     beings. The policy sets out various strategies for ensuring 
     regional cooperation in combating human trafficking. It is 
     suggested that the South African National Defence Force 
     (SANDF) take the initiative in formulating a similar policy 
     in order to effect better co-operation amongst nation states 
     in Africa, especially in the southern region of Africa, to 
     combat human trafficking. In order to address the role of the 
     SANDF in the fight against human trafficking meaningfully and 
     to develop evidence-based strategies and policies, regional 
     coordination in combating trafficking is paramount. The 
     article examines current legislation, instruments and 
     strategies as regards human trafficking in order to make 
     recommendations for counter-trafficking policy standards and 
     best practices for the SANDF.


                              Introduction

       Although not a novel phenomenon, the crime of human 
     trafficking is complex, diverse, and constantly evolving as 
     traffickers develop new tactics to trade in human beings. 
     Human trafficking affects not only individuals, but also 
     countries across the world. It has been estimated by various 
     international organisations that millions of victims are 
     trapped in trafficking. Although both international entities 
     and domestic jurisdictions have proposed various strategies 
     to combat the rapidly growing problem of human trafficking, 
     the combating of this criminal activity remains a challenge 
     for all branches of law enforcement, including the military. 
     The primary international instrument, the United Nations (UN) 
     Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in 
     Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the 
     United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised 
     Crime of 2000 (Trafficking Protocol) is already 17 years old; 
     yet, regional and national efforts to combat trafficking have 
     produced minimal positive results. South Africa is no 
     exception in this regard. Since the end of apartheid, the 
     jurisdiction has been experiencing an increase of illegal 
     immigrants from all over Africa, as well as other foreign 
     countries. It has further been acknowledged that since 1994, 
     the trafficking of men, women, and children into various 
     exploitative sectors, such as labour trafficking and 
     involuntary sex work, amongst others, have also escalated in 
     South Africa.
       This multi-dimensional illicit modern-day slavery industry 
     must be fought at national, regional and international level 
     with an integrated, multi-sectoral approach. In this respect, 
     the SANDF also has a role to play, and can learn a great deal 
     from NATO, amongst others, for guidelines and best practices. 
     The Policy on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings of 2004 
     of this intergovernmental military alliance recognises that 
     human trafficking feeds on corruption and organised crime, 
     and has ``the potential to destabilise fragile governments''. 
     As no such policy currently exists in the SANDF, it is 
     proposed that the Defence Force evaluate and develop 
     policies, strategies and force design through the 
     implementation of specific evidence-based codes of conduct or 
     strategic plans to combat this offence.
       Apart from the violation of the fundamental human rights of 
     persons being trafficked, trafficking is a substantial source 
     of revenue for criminal organisations whose activities may 
     destabilise legitimate governments and undermine the mission 
     of the military. The crime may become a security issue and 
     undercut military operations. However, as known from previous 
     experiences, military troops themselves can create or 
     increase the demand for trafficked women.
       This article is structured as follows: it is first 
     necessary to explain which conduct falls under human 
     trafficking in South African and international law. Second, 
     the measures government have taken to combat this crime in 
     South Africa are considered. Next, the role of the military 
     in South Africa in combating human trafficking is considered 
     and compared with international and regional efforts. 
     Recommendations are then finally made for steps to be taken 
     by the military to play a more significant role in combating 
     human trafficking.


            Background to human trafficking in South Africa

       Although people have heard of human trafficking, very few 
     people really know what it entails and the role it plays in 
     international organised crime. As a significant facet of 
     transnational organised crime and one of the most lucrative 
     criminal enterprises globally, human trafficking was ranked 
     as the second most profitable crime around the world in 2015, 
     making it the fastest-growing source of revenue for organised 
     criminal operations internationally.
       In order to combat the trade in human cargo, legal 
     jurisdictions have adopted a range of international standards 
     and obligations, of which the UN's Trafficking Protocol is 
     the most significant. Following the prototype of the 
     Trafficking Protocol, governments around the world have also 
     committed themselves to enact national human trafficking 
     legislation to address modern-day slavery. In Africa, where 
     the scourge of trafficking is widespread, South Africa is one 
     of the few nations that actively pursue the punishment of 
     human trafficking. This is vital as South Africa with its 
     viable and developing economy has become a magnet for illegal 
     migrants and human traffickers, attracting people from the 
     whole continent fleeing from political and economic upheaval, 
     armed conflict.'' the HIV/AIDS pandemic, food insecurity and 
     unemployment. The resultant poverty in especially South 
Africa's regional neighbours, still grappling with the aftereffects of 
colonisation and failed statehood, has furthermore caused an exodus to 
South Africa for better life opportunities. Traffickers are said to 
service the demand of the very lucrative human smuggling industry, 
especially in conflict and postconflict areas. In many illegal 
migration cases, displaced people make desperate decisions by relying 
on initially `benevolent' smugglers who transform into ruthless 
traffickers, keeping the illegal migrants captive as human slaves. 
Trafficking in the jurisdiction is additionally complex and diverse as 
it consists of culturally unique trafficking types such as ukuthwala. 
The country has been listed as a human trafficking source, transit, and 
destination country for men, women

[[Page H4713]]

and children to, from and within South Africa for mainly labour and sex 
trafficking.

       South Africa has the highest number of asylum seekers in 
     the world. Although South Africa supports large numbers of 
     refugees and asylum seekers, the jurisdiction is also home to 
     an estimated five million illegal immigrants, including some 
     three million Zimbabweans. In response to the dynamics of 
     supply and demand, migration (which has always been endemic 
     in Africa) to South Africa is aided by the porous nature of 
     the country's borders and coast lines, as well as ineffective 
     monitoring of land, rail and sea transportation modes. 
     Trafficked people are indistinguishable amongst these flows.
       In order to tackle the multi-dimensional crime of human 
     trafficking in the country, South Africa became a signatory 
     to the Trafficking Protocol in 2000, and ratified the 
     instrument in 2004. As a result, the jurisdiction became 
     subject to international obligations in terms of which 
     specific duties were imposed upon the state to combat and 
     punish the crime effectively and to protect the rights of 
     victims. The need to enact domestic anti-trafficking 
     legislation was prioritised, and on 29 July 2013, the 
     Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act 7 of 
     2013 (Trafficking Act) was signed into law but only became 
     operational on 9 August 2015. The Act introduces a 
     universally acceptable but still country-specific definition 
     of human trafficking:
       `Trafficking' includes the delivery, recruitment, 
     procurement, capture, removal, transportation, transfer, 
     harbouring, sale, exchange, lease, disposal or receiving of a 
     person, or the adoption of a child facilitated or secured 
     through legal or illegal means, within or across the borders 
     of the Republic, of a person trafficked or an immediate 
     family member of the person trafficked, by means of:
       (a) a threat of harm;
       (b) the threat or use of force, intimidation or other forms 
     of coercion;
       (c) the abuse of vulnerability;
       (d) fraud;
       (e) deception or false pretences;
       (f) debt bondage;
       (g) abduction;
       (h) kidnapping;
       (i) the abuse of power;
       (j) the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to 
     obtain the consent of a person having control or authority 
     over another person; or
       (k) the giving or receiving of payments, compensation, 
     rewards, benefits or any other advantage,
       for the purpose of any form or manner of exploitation, 
     sexual grooming or abuse of such person, including the 
     commission of any sexual offence or any offence of a sexual 
     nature in any other law against such person or performing any 
     sexual act with such person, whether committed in or outside 
     the borders of the Republic.
       In essence, this definition holds that persons are 
     trafficked if they have been moved within a country or to 
     another country, as a result of force, fraud or manipulation 
     and are exploited or compelled to work under threat of 
     violence for no pay, beyond subsistence. The definition is 
     very broad, and except for the requirement that a person be 
     removed, transported, or transferred from one place to 
     another, other acts such as the mere harbouring of a person 
     through a threat of intimidation with the intent to exploit 
     the person are sufficient for the crime to be committed. With 
     regard to the role of the military, the moving of a person 
     from one country to another, or within the country, through 
     deceptive or violent means for any type of exploitative 
     purpose is of particular significance. The exploitative 
     purposes may include forced labour, involuntary sex work, 
     begging, stealing, drug running, forced marriage and the sale 
     of body parts, amongst others.
       Amongst other requirements, the Trafficking Protocol 
     obliges member states to criminalise trafficking, and to 
     investigate and prosecute traffickers. The Trafficking 
     Protocol also instructs that states must adopt or strengthen 
     legislative or other measures to discourage the demand that 
     fosters all forms of exploitation of persons that lead to 
     trafficking. States are to determine which measures to take 
     in accordance with the domestic legislation and policies of 
     each state as well as in accordance with the financial and 
     human resource capabilities of the state.
       Another important condition that the Protocol stipulates 
     for signatory states is to undertake border control measures. 
     Border management is one of the roles the SANDF is expected 
     to play in South Africa, along with other secondary functions 
     such as peacekeeping and humanitarian support. However, very 
     few joint efforts have been made with neighbouring countries 
     to deal multilaterally with border issues and crimes such as 
     human trafficking and human smuggling. Co-operation between 
     South Africa and its neighbours in this regard is usually not 
     of a preventative nature, but only takes place after the 
     occurrence of smuggling or trafficking has been discovered.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of Chairman Visclosky's En Bloc 
Amendment, which includes Jackson Lee #12.
  I wish to thank Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole of the 
Rules Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
  I thank Chairwoman Visclosky and Ranking Member Calvert for their 
hard work in bringing Division C, the Defense portion of this omnibus 
appropriations legislative package, 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 and their work in ensuring that they have resources 
needed to keep our Armed Forces the greatest fighting force for peace 
on earth.
  Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, 
which is simple and straightforward and affirms an example of the 
national goodness that makes America the most exceptional nation on 
earth.
  The purpose of Jackson Lee Amendment #12, which is identical to the 
amendment adopted twice in the last Congress, is to provide the 
Secretary of Defense flexibility to allocate resources needed to 
provide technical assistance by U.S. military women to military women 
in other countries combating violence as a weapon of war, terrorism, 
human trafficking, narcotics trafficking.
  Madam Chair, the United States is committed to combating violent 
extremism, protecting our borders and the globe from the scourge of 
terrorism.
  The United States Armed Forces possess an unparalleled expertise and 
technological capability that will aid not only in combating and 
defeating terrorists who hate our country and prey upon innocent 
persons, especially women, girls, and the elderly.
  But we must recognize that notwithstanding our extraordinary 
technical military capabilities, we face adversaries who adapt very 
quickly because they are not constrained by geographic limitations or 
norms of morality and decency.
  Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS/ISIL and other militant 
terrorists, including the Sinai's Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in the Sinai 
Peninsula which poses a threat to Egypt.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #12 help provide the Department of Defense with 
the resources needed to provide technical assistance to countries on 
innovative strategies to provide defense technologies and resources 
that promote the security of the American people and allied nation 
states.
  Terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking and their impact 
on women and girls across the globe has had a great adverse impact on 
us all.
  According to a UNICEF report, rape, torture and human trafficking by 
terrorist and militant groups have been employed as weapons of war, 
affecting over twenty thousand women and girls.
  Looking at the history of terrorism highlights the importance of 
providing technical assistance through our military might, as this 
enables us to combat terrorism which now can plague us here in the 
United States.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #12 will help curb terrorism abroad by making 
available American technical military expertise to military in other 
countries, like Nigeria, who are combating violent jihadists in their 
country and to keep those terrorists out of our country.
  Time and again American lives have been lost at the hands of 
terrorists.
  These victims include Christians, Muslims, journalists, health care 
providers, relief workers, schoolchildren, and members of the 
diplomatic corps and the Armed Services.
  This is why the technical assistance offered by our military 
personnel is integral to promoting security operation of intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft for missions to empower local 
forces to combat terrorism.
  Terrorists across the globe have wreaked havoc on our society and 
cannot not be tolerated or ignored, for their actions pose a threat to 
our national security and the security of the world.
  Madam Chair, from the United States to Africa to Europe to Asia and 
the Middle East, it is clear that combating terrorism remains one of 
highest national priorities.
  Collectively, helping our neighbors and their military build capacity 
to combat terrorism, eradicate human trafficking, stop narcotics 
trafficking and negate their impact on women and girls across the globe 
serves our national interest.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee 
Amendment #12 by voting for the Chairman's En Bloc Amendment to 
Division C of RCP 116-17.
  Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the underlying amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I rise today to support my amendment, which 
would prohibit taxpayer money from going directly to the Taliban.
  According to recent news stories, the Defense Department asked 
Congress for

[[Page H4714]]

funding that could be used to reimburse the Taliban for transportation 
and other expenses. That is quite simply absurd.
  For many years, I have worked in a bipartisan way to shine a light on 
how American tax dollars are being misspent in Afghanistan. There have 
been a number of oversight reports conducted by the Special Inspector 
General for Afghanistan Reconstruction that highlight how these 
programs have been mismanaged and poorly run for years.
  The SIGAR has identified a disturbing amount of waste, fraud, and 
abuse totaling in the billions of dollars. This level of wasteful 
spending is staggering, yet we continued pouring money down the drain 
anyway. But sending taxpayer dollars straight to the Taliban, despite 
the price paid by men and women in uniform, is the ultimate insult.
  We owe it to the taxpayers to not waste any more of their money.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my 
amendment, which would increase the funding level to Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) from the Department of Defense by 
four million dollars above current levels. I want to thank 
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Visclosky for his support of this 
program and of this amendment.
  Since 1837, HBCUs have served as training grounds for generations of 
African American students and scholars, and more recently, these 
important institutions have strengthened America's scientific 
workforce. Educating students and communities as anchors of academic 
excellence, HBCUs have a storied past and a dynamic present in their 
unique role of raising up new academic leaders against the grain of 
decades of discrimination and racism.
  Building on this long history of achievement through investment, my 
amendment will increase resources for HBCUs by strengthening the 
Department of Defense's investments in the physical sciences, 
mathematics, and engineering programs at HBCUs and their corresponding 
national security benefits.
  HBCUs support some of the most cutting-edge defense and national 
security-related research in the country. Armed with these continued 
investments, HBCUs will be able to maintain their unique role in 
buttressing important national security initiatives.
  For example, these programs support research in mobile computers that 
can be deployed to aid our servicemen and servicewomen on the 
battlefield.
  Additionally, these programs are helping to improve the way our 
intelligence community classifies and manages large infrared 
photographs taken on important reconnaissance missions.
  At a time when we are encouraging more training for students in the 
STEM fields, and promoting the benefits of a more diverse workforce in 
research and in the high-tech sectors, increasing DoD's investments for 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities strengthens these goals 
and institutions, as well as our national security. I am encouraged 
that this amendment was included in the package of bipartisan en bloc 
amendments. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to increase 
funding for the Air National Guard's Facility Modernization and 
Sustainment account. I appreciate the support of the chairman for its 
inclusion in en bloc No. 2 to the Defense Appropriations bill.
  I am so proud of the work of the men and women in the National Guard, 
including in my home state of Wisconsin.
  Unfortunately, decrepit, outdated, and decaying Air National Guard 
facilities are a disservice to the men and women who put on the 
uniform.
  They deserve facilities that are up-to-date and which will help 
improve their ability to carry out their missions in defense of our 
nation and their communities.
  Yet, we know that such aging and inefficient facilities exist 
nationwide including in my district where the 128th Air Refueling Wing 
is operating out of a building which was built in 1970, has aging and 
hard to maintain critical building systems and where much of the 
current square footage is unusable. That's according to the Defense 
Department. This is not an isolated story which is why I think an 
increase here is necessary.
  I appreciate the chairman, in his mark, for boosting funding for this 
critical account. I applaud his recognition of the situation facing 
many Air Guard units across the country and his commitment to putting 
funding into this account.
  But the needs simply continue to outpace available resources.
  I am aware that there are National Guard units across our country 
that have worthwhile projects directly related to military readiness 
that they would like to pursue. This additional funding should be 
prioritized for projects that can help increase mission readiness at 
minimal additional costs to the taxpayers.
  For example, projects that would give help Air Guard units take 
advantage of and utilize available local assets such as national jet 
fuel pipelines to provide instant access to additional fuel reserves 
and provide a critical second, reliable, secure and convenient fuel 
delivery method that would help ensure that strategic missions such as 
refueling could continue uninterrupted should the primary method of 
receiving fuel be disrupted.
  Now that the House has approved my amendment, I would urge the 
Defense Department to utilize these additional funds for needed 
projects that directly sustain mission readiness and contribute to our 
national defense. The reality is that there are plenty out there.
  Again, I support the Chairman's mark and I am grateful for the 
inclusion of my amendment to help enable more projects that can build 
greater resiliency for execution of critical State and Federal Air 
National Guard missions.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chair, Lyme disease is the most 
prevalent vector-borne disease in the United States today, and members 
of the U.S. Armed Forces are not immune to its debilitating effects, as 
they train and complete exercises out in grassy and wooded areas.
  According to the February 2018 Medical Surveillance Monthly Report, 
published by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch, tick-borne 
diseases accounted for more than half of the confirmed cases of vector-
borne diseases among service members--active duty and reserve--recorded 
over seven years, from 2010-2016. Lyme disease alone had the largest 
number of confirmed cases.
  In its inaugural report to Congress, the federal Tick-Borne Disease 
Working Group stated that ``Tick-Borne Diseases have rapidly become a 
serious and growing threat to public health in the United States. 
Despite many scientific unknowns, experts agree that the incidence and 
distribution of tick-borne diseases are increasing.'' The Working Group 
also stated that ``Federal funding for tick-borne diseases is less per 
new surveillance case than that of any other disease.''
  While the tick-borne disease research at CDMRP has been continuously 
funded at $5 million since Fiscal Year 2016, the Working Group's report 
is a sign that there is still much more to be done.
  The amendment I offer today will increase funding by $2 million for 
the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) for the 
purposes of tick-borne disease research. The added funding will enable 
the CDMRP to support more innovative research to address gaps in 
knowledge and information on tick-borne diseases. Military and civilian 
personnel and their dependents who are at risk will be better informed 
and prepared with enhanced awareness, education, and research programs.
  I urge support for this amendment--we cannot shortchange our federal 
responsibility. We owe it to the countless patients, including our men 
and women in uniform suffering from tick-borne diseases and their 
families.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the en bloc 
amendment, and to thank the Defense Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. 
Visclosky, for including the Sherrill Amendment 58 in the en bloc 
package.
  My amendment reduces the Surface and Shallow Water Mine 
Countermeasures program by $5 million in order to add $5 million for 
the Navy to advance the qualification and certification of Advanced 
Manufacturing processes for the integration of 3-D printed components 
into undersea warfare platforms. This amendment furthers the Navy's 
goal of embracing cutting-edge technologies.
  3-D printing reduces the cost of manufacturing parts for which there 
is limited supply. It also creates unique parts that would otherwise be 
prohibitively expensive to make with traditional manufacturing.
  I am very proud of the work Marotta Controls in Montville, New 
Jersey, is doing to support this very effort. Marotta is a family-owned 
business, now in its third generation of ownership. President and CEO 
Patrick Marotta is proudly carrying on the work his grandfather began 
when he founded the company during WWII. I thank Marotta Controls for 
their work to ensure efficiency and quality control to enable our 
Navy's submariners to continue to play their critical role in defense 
of our nation.
  I thank Defense Subcommittee Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member 
Calvert for their leadership in adopting this important provision.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

[[Page H4715]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Langevin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam 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 246, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, 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. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I would like to begin by thanking the Rules Committee 
for making my amendment in order, as well as Chairman Visclosky and 
Ranking Member Calvert for their hard work on this division of the 
appropriations package.
  Madam Chair, I offer this bipartisan amendment with my good friends 
and colleagues, Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Lieu, in support of electromagnetic 
railgun, a technology that has been described as ``revolutionary'' and 
a potential multimission ``game changer.''
  The electromagnetic railgun truly transforms naval power projection. 
This technology can rapidly launch high-velocity projectiles capable of 
precision strikes at a range of more than 100 miles, all without the 
need for combustible propellants or motors. Ships deploying with this 
system will have longer ranges, deeper magazines, and lower cost-per-
shot than conventional naval artillery.
  This technology has already received initial investments; however, 
current and future investment is absolutely vital to ensure the railgun 
module being designed is built to meet the needs of the Future Surface 
Combatant specifications and can be tested aboard existing naval 
vessels.
  The additional $10 million provided by this amendment will help keep 
delivery of an integrated prototype mount system on its original 
timeline of being ready by 2021. Continued investment in this program 
will also support live-fire engagement testing using hypervelocity 
projectiles and the next generation of shipboard compatible pulsed 
power.
  While I believe the United States continues to lead the way, our 
adversaries are not resting on their laurels, as they are also 
investing, researching, and developing these groundbreaking 
technologies. Earlier this year, for instance, reports emerged of the 
Chinese Navy fielding an electromagnetic railgun. So it is absolutely 
critical that we not allow them or anyone to beat us to the punch.
  Given the maturity of the technology and the urgency impressed upon 
us by our competitors, I hope the House will send a well-funded railgun 
program to the Senate.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's persistence 
to provide robust funding for the Navy's electromagnetic railgun and 
recognize that he has offered a similar amendment on the fiscal year 
2019 appropriations bill.
  I would point out to my colleagues that the bill currently fully 
funds the budget request of the administration at $15 million for the 
railgun program.
  While I do not think the additional $10 million investment will 
accelerate the development of a demonstrator mount and continued 
testing, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am 
prepared to close. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, first of all, I want to thank Chairman Visclosky and 
Ranking Member Calvert for their comments and their support and for 
their hard work on the consideration of this division of the 
appropriations package and all they have done and continue to do to 
advance our national security and make sure that our warfighters never 
enter a fair fight.
  This bipartisan amendment supports game-changing technology that is 
already demonstrating tactically relevant capability. Just last month 
at White Sands Missile Range, the Navy fired a railgun on a 34-degree 
trajectory at 6 megajoules and will be firing at 20 megajoules in 
September.
  By building upon years of development and investment, the Navy 
railgun will be tested as early as next year aboard surface vessels, 
firing explosive and nonexplosive projectiles at air- and sea-based 
targets.
  Along with my colleagues Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Lieu, I urge support of 
this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam 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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Chair, 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 Rhode Island 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Langevin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam 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 245, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, 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. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, my amendment would provide $2 million for civics 
education grants under the Department of Defense National Defense 
Education Program as authorized by the House fiscal year 2020 National 
Defense Authorization Act that was reported out of the Armed Services 
Committee last week.
  Madam Chair, it is not an exaggeration to say American democracy is 
under attack, and we need to shore up our defenses. Foreign 
governments, particularly Russia, are actively engaged in efforts to 
undermine our democracy and sow seeds of discord among the electorate, 
and they have been frighteningly successful.
  In the special counsel's report on Russian interference in the 2016 
Presidential election, Director Mueller described Russia's election-
meddling operations as ``sweeping and systemic.''
  Russia systematically waged a misinformation campaign to weaken our 
confidence and participation in the democratic process, including by 
discouraging voting, undermining confidence in our institutions of 
government, promoting false political narratives, and widening social 
divisions.
  Madam Chair, we need to increase our resilience to these attacks on 
our democracy, and I believe civics education must be a major part of 
this strategy. Civics programs provide students with an understanding 
of American law, how government works, and the skills to participate in 
democracy.

[[Page H4716]]

  A citizenry armed with a civics background, I believe, is absolutely 
crucial to a healthy democracy; and in the context of the threats that 
we face today, I believe it is vital to the stability of our democracy.
  Unfortunately, only 17 percent of Americans say they can trust the 
Federal Government to do what is right at least most of the time; only 
26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government; and 
less than 30 percent of fourth, eighth, and twelfth grade students 
scored proficient on the 2014 National Assessment of Education Progress 
civics test.
  Furthermore, in 2016, only 56 percent of the United States voting-age 
population voted in the Presidential election, a number lower than most 
other developed democratic nations.
  It should come as no surprise that we are vulnerable to 
misinformation campaigns. Too many of us do not fully understand or 
engage in the democratic process.
  Madam Chair, I believe that we need to increase participation and 
improve civic knowledge, and education is, I believe, the way to do it.
  $2 million for civics education is just a start, but it will fund the 
development of innovative, evidence-based civics programs at the 
Department of Defense schools to start with.
  Working with colleges and universities or expert nonprofits, DOD 
schools will help pilot new curricula targeted to improving 
longitudinal metrics, including democratic participation and media 
literacy. This will allow us to build new programs, test their 
efficacy, and, from there, chart a broader path forward.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
encourage the development of more effective civics education programs.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I simply want to take the time to thank 
my colleague for the work he is doing to advocate and advance knowledge 
of our Nation's youth on the rights and duties of citizenship. Again, I 
thank him for his work.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers, and I will 
close by just thanking Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Calvert 
for their work on the Defense Subcommittee portion of this package and 
for their commitment to our national defense.
  As I said, I am troubled by the work of our enemies and adversaries 
to try to undermine confidence in government, sowing divisions among 
the electorate. I am hoping that by strengthening our civics education, 
starting with our young people, we will build resiliency into 
protecting our democracy and everything that we love about this 
country.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Chair, 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 Rhode Island 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Lipinski

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam 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 247, line 17, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to provide an 
additional $10 million for the National Security Innovation Network, or 
NSIN, which was originally called MD5.
  Section 225 of the 2018 NDAA authorized the national security 
innovation and entrepreneurial education programs, including what is 
now known as NSIN. NSIN aims to educate and build a network of 
innovators and entrepreneurs equipped with the expertise, know-how, 
incentives, and resources required to develop, commercialize, and apply 
technology for defense and national security applications.
  NSIN initiatives provide education and technology innovation and 
entrepreneurship. Of note, they provided a unique pathway for veterans 
to leverage their expertise, while learning cutting-edge business 
innovation methodology, and apply their knowledge to new national 
security problems.
  Through these initiatives, DOD is growing a cadre of entrepreneurs 
that are adept at critical thinking, innovative problem solving, and 
the creation of successful ventures that deliver economic national 
security and social value.
  One initiative in the National Security Innovation Network is the 
highly successful Hacking for Defense course. Hacking for Defense, or 
H4D, is a course currently taught at more than two dozen universities 
across the Nation. It pairs student teams with sponsors from across the 
defense and intelligence community to apply lean startup methodology 
developed in Silicon Valley to rapidly solve challenging, nonclassified 
national security problems.
  H4D was authorized in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act and 
has been taught for 3 years, already producing innovative solutions to 
national security problems. For example, a team at Columbia University 
helped Special Operations Command automate communication of essential 
information from the battlefield to Central Command; a Stanford team 
helped develop an innovative way for Navy SEALs to spend less time 
underwater.
  These and other successful innovations have been developed by 
students in these classes. The innovation and entrepreneurial education 
that occurs with H4D also helps to train the next generation of our 
industrial-based innovators. In this way, it provides tremendous 
benefit to our national security.
  Madam Chair, I have had discussions with Chairman Visclosky on this 
amendment about the best way to move forward with this funding 
increase, and I believe we have come to an agreement on the best way to 
move forward to get an even bigger increase.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and 
I certainly do support his amendment.
  The amendment expands the Hacking for Defense program, designed to 
provide students the opportunity to learn how to work with the 
Department and intelligence community to better address the Nation's 
emerging threats. It is an important activity, and he is absolutely 
correct.
  Madam Chair, I would point out for my colleagues that, in the current 
fiscal year, this program was funded at $15 million. In the current 
budget--and I appreciate his advocacy on behalf of this program--that 
has now been increased to $40 million. Money is not everything, but it 
is important to this program to make sure it is adequately funded.
  I, again, thank the gentleman very much for his work.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Visclosky for his work on 
this appropriations bill and for working with me on this amendment.
  America's strength and entrepreneurship and innovation, we need to 
use those to protect our Nation in a rapidly evolving threat 
environment and

[[Page H4717]]

maintaining our security. A small increase in investment in Hacking for 
Defense helps us do this, while also training the next generation of 
innovators who understand the need to contribute to our national 
security.
  Madam Chair, with the agreement of the chairman, I withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


           Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, as the designee of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement Directive-type Memorandum (DTM)-19-004, 
     Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with 
     Gender Dysphoria, March 12, 2019 (effective date April 12, 
     2019).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise to offer this amendment on behalf of 
Congresswoman Jackie Speier from California, who has been a determined 
leader and partner in pushing back on this administration's ban on 
transgender servicemembers.
  Madam Chair, this amendment is very simple. It states that no money 
appropriated in this Defense appropriations bill will be used to 
implement the President's ban on transgender servicemembers. No money 
shall be used to ask whether or not a servicemember has transitioned: 
to force them to remain closeted in a Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
environment; to force them out to their colleagues before they are 
ready to outwardly express who they are; and to ultimately force them 
out of the service.
  The President and his administration wrongfully argue that it is 
about military readiness and unit cohesion, but these arguments are the 
same ones that were made to keep the military racially segregated.
  Madam Chair, my service in an integrated armed service did not harm 
readiness, and neither does the service of the more than 14,000 
transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
  Transgender servicemembers increase lethality and readiness. They 
have served honorably and have received prestige commendations. They 
are proof that anyone who can serve should be afforded the opportunity 
to serve. This legacy of honorable service will outlast this 
administration, this transgender ban, and this administration's attack 
on transgender Americans everywhere.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to do what is right: Put country 
before party; defend the thousands of Americans who are making the 
greatest sacrifice they can make for our country. Defend the brave and 
patriotic servicemembers who all came before Congress to talk about 
their service and the service of other transgender servicemembers. 
Defend them unquestionably. Defend the thousands of transgender 
servicemembers impacted. Defend them as they have defended us.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, this amendment risks undermining the 
readiness of our military at a time when we can least afford it. It 
does so by prohibiting the implementation of a careful and thoughtful 
policy developed by a panel of military experts last year regarding 
military service by transgender individuals.
  Then-Secretary of Defense Mattis wrote that, in his best professional 
judgment, allowing military service by transgender individuals in the 
absence of this policy could ``undermine the readiness, disrupt the 
unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military that 
is not conductive to military effectiveness and lethality.''
  This current policy is not--I repeat, not--a ban on service by 
transgender individuals. It carefully balances the readiness needs of 
the military with the medical needs of transgender individuals who wish 
to serve.
  As new recruits, those individuals can serve openly under their 
biological gender so long as they have not suffered from gender 
dysphoria within 36 months and have not undergone gender transition 
procedures.
  Furthermore, the new policy only applies to those seeking to join the 
military after its April 12, 2019, implementation and allows the 
service and the Coast Guard to waive its application in individual 
cases.
  This issue is not one of social policy but of deployability. 
Individuals with medical conditions that do not allow them to deploy, 
such as those identified in the policy, adversely impact military 
readiness and reduce the military's warfighting capability.
  I would also point out that individuals who require daily injections 
for other medical conditions are also not deployable, such as people 
who have diabetes.
  Madam Chair, the military is an institution with one primary mission: 
to fight and win our Nation's wars. Anything that interferes with its 
readiness for that mission poses an unacceptable risk to our men and 
women in uniform.
  Unfortunately, this amendment poses just such a risk by disregarding 
the military's professional judgment and interfering with the policy 
developed to preserve warfighting readiness.
  Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to do so as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, no one would argue that military 
readiness and deployability are paramount, but transgender 
servicemembers do not inherently impact either.
  Every service chief testified that transgender service would not 
disrupt unit cohesion or readiness and emphasized soldier deployability 
and not their gender identity.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I would point out that the chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Air Force 
and the Commandant of the Marine Corps testified that the inclusive 
policy adopted under the Obama administration has caused no readiness 
issues. A panel of retired military Surgeons General released a report 
finding the ban's rationale for inclusion is contradicted by ample 
evidence and that the ban ``harms readiness through forced dishonesty, 
wasted talent, double standards, and barriers to adequate care.''
  Madam Chair, this is the right thing to do, and I would simply close 
by saying, with so much anger and so much hate in this world today, it 
is time to be kind to people.

  Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time 
I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague and also Congresswoman 
Speier for their leadership on this critical issue.
  Madam Chair, I am so disappointed that in 2019 this amendment is even 
necessary. Our military is strong and capable because of our dedicated 
servicemembers, including nearly 15,000 transgender troops.
  This year, the Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the 
President's policy, and Active-Duty transgender servicemembers 
testified before the House for the first time. Each one was an 
incredibly capable, experienced, and decorated leader.
  The DOD's exhaustive review found no valid reason to ban these 
patriotic

[[Page H4718]]

Americans who meet the same criteria as their peers.
  For 3 years, our military has operated under a de facto inclusive 
policy where thousands could serve openly with, to quote General 
Millie, ``precisely zero unit cohesion problems.''

                              {time}  1545

  Eighteen militaries already have inclusive policies without incidents 
or impact to readiness, and the facts reveal this policy for what it 
is: discrimination.
  I urge my colleagues to support Ms. Speier's amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Chair, 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 Maryland 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Amash

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. AMASH. Madam 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:

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to submit a certification under section 702(h) of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or for an 
     acquisition pursuant to such a certification, if such 
     certification does not include the following sentence: ``This 
     certification does not authorize any acquisition that 
     intentionally targets a person reasonably believed to be 
     located outside the United States if a significant purpose of 
     such targeting is to acquire the communications of a 
     particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the 
     United States, any acquisition of a communication as to which 
     no participant is a person who is targeted pursuant to the 
     authorized acquisition, or any acquisition of a communication 
     known to be entirely domestic''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Amash) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. AMASH. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  For more than a year, Republicans have been speaking forcefully about 
the use of FISA to gather intelligence on people associated with the 
Trump campaign. The concern is that some information was 
inappropriately included in an application submitted to the FISA court 
which then found probable cause and granted an order to authorize 
surveillance of a Trump associate.
  I appreciate my colleague's concerns about Americans' Fourth 
Amendment rights, but if my colleagues are concerned about the part of 
FISA used during the 2016 Presidential campaign, they should be 
terrified of section 702.
  Under section 702 of FISA, the FISA court does not approve targets. 
There are no individualized applications or requirements to show 
probable cause in order to collect communications. The government can 
search and sweep in billions of communications, including 
communications of Americans, and then query that data for a particular 
American's communications without a warrant.
  The communications can be used to investigate and prosecute 
Americans. The government can use an American's data to send them to 
prison without ever obtaining a warrant for it.
  The Amash-Lofgren amendment puts in basic safeguards to allow the 
government to continue using section 702 for its stated purpose of 
gathering foreign intelligence, while limiting the government's 
warrantless collection of Americans' communications under FISA.
  This amendment gives my Republican colleagues an opportunity to show 
that their concern about Fourth Amendment violations extends to the 
countless Americans that are impacted by the government's warrantless 
FISA surveillance.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, the proposed change inserts a new test 
for the certification of acquisition and is likely meant to make it 
more difficult for the NSA to target foreign nationals if the intended 
target is in communication with someone in the United States.
  I would point out, however, to the gentleman that this is an 
appropriations bill. This is not an authorization bill. The amendment 
is a serious change in policy and deserves more than 10 minutes of 
debate in this Chamber on our bill.
  The issue belongs in the authorizing committees. I do not believe 
that this amendment has benefited from the work of the authorization 
process, and I do believe it would potentially put American lives at 
greater risk.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AMASH. Madam Chairwoman, a vote for this amendment is also a vote 
to keep the President in check. For 2 years now my Democratic 
colleagues have spoken about the administration's violation of civil 
liberties and its disregard for laws passed by Congress.
  Section 702 is a broad authority with limited oversight and its 
regular use involves the warrantless collection of Americans' data. 
Even under previous administrations, the government has misled or kept 
information from Congress about its use of surveillance authorities, 
including their impact on Americans.
  The government has also repeatedly failed to abide by legal 
limitations placed on those surveillance powers. The Fourth Amendment 
recognizes that broad surveillance powers are too dangerous to be put 
in the hands of any President.
  The Amash-Lofgren amendment protects Fourth Amendment secured rights 
by limiting the ability of the President to unconstitutionally collect 
Americans' communications without a warrant.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. For over 3 years, the House Intelligence Committee posted 
bipartisan classified and unclassified education sessions for Members 
to learn about FISA section 702.
  FISA section 702 is a critical national security authority that has 
helped the United States collect vital intelligence on terrorists and 
other hostile actors located overseas. After vigorous debate, we were 
able to pass a bipartisan, bicameral compromise bill in the last 
Congress that preserved the operational flexibility of section 702 
while instituting reforms to further protect U.S. persons' privacy.
  President Trump signed this legislation into law in January of 2018. 
The amendment today seeks to reopen a debate that was settled last 
Congress. Rather than debating this issue within the relevant 
committees of jurisdiction, however, Members who lost the debate last 
year now seek to have another bite at that apple to subvert the 
legislative process by bypassing those committees. If passed, I fear 
this amendment will have devastating consequences on our national 
security.
  First, the amendment creates new, strict requirements on targeting of 
foreign actors overseas just because the hostile foreign actor is 
communicating with an associate in the United States. If this amendment 
were to pass, if a terrorist located in a foreign country communicates 
with conspirators located in the United States, the intelligence 
community might not be able to use section 702 to target that terrorist 
because he is communicating with a person in the United States.
  For example, the intelligence community was able to thwart Najibullah 
Zazi's planned terrorist attack to detonate explosives in Manhattan. If 
this amendment were enacted, the FBI and NSA might not have been able 
to use 702 to target the al-Qaida courier in Pakistan communicating 
back to conspirators in the United States, thus resulting in another 
terrorist attack in New York City.

[[Page H4719]]

  Section 702 was enacted to prevent this type of event. This example 
illustrates the amendment's callous disregard for the history of the 
program.
  Second, the amendment would limit NSA's abouts communication 
collection. Abouts communication collection takes place in NSA's 
upstream collection, and due to how internet communications work, 
allows NSA to collect the communications that may reference a 702 
target's email address.
  Again, we debated this issue last Congress and placed a statutory 
restriction on NSA's ability to continue abouts collection until 
meeting certain requirements.
  I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. AMASH. Madam Chairwoman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. AMASH. Madam Chairwoman, my colleague is parroting the same thing 
we hear each time we try to make any reforms to the government 
surveillance authorities. These arguments are no longer credible.
  Just a few months ago, the former Director of National Intelligence 
admitted that the government ``may have oversold'' the importance of 
the NSA's dragnet of Americans' phone records when Congress was 
considering reforms in 2013. Now we have seen reports that the program 
has been shuttered entirely despite the government's dire warnings 
about limiting it to protect Americans' rights.
  Madam Chair, my amendment still allows the government to use section 
702 for its purpose of surveilling foreigners overseas. All it does is 
limit things like collecting fully domestic communications.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairwoman, I understand I have the right to 
close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas, (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, and I want 
to rise to offer my support for his tireless efforts on this topic, in 
particular.
  It should not be a hard question that the American citizens, the 
people who live here afforded protections under our Constitution, 
should not be targeted unnecessarily, even when we are doing our 
appropriate job to target those who wish to do us harm abroad.
  I believe that the amendment in question attempts to do just that, to 
ensure we have those tools to target those abroad while protecting 
American citizens, and I thank the gentleman for his efforts.
  Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from 
California for sponsoring this amendment. This is needed.
  I just want to remind this body of a couple statements. One was made 
by Attorney Emmet Flood talking about what took place with the 
President of the United States, and he said this:

       We would all do well to remember, if it can happen--talking 
     about the FISA issue--if it can happen to a President, 
     imagine what they can do to you and I. Imagine what they can 
     do to you and I. We need reform in this program.

  Second, Chuck Schumer. When the leader in this Congress, leader in 
the Senate was on the Rachel Maddow Show on January 3 talking about 
what took place with the President----
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Chair, Mr. Schumer said this, about the President. 
He said: ``Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community--
they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.''
  That is not how it is supposed to work in this country. That is not 
how it is supposed to work. The unelected people answer to the elected 
individual. This is about reforming this program, making sure it 
respects our fundamental liberties. I respect the gentleman for 
bringing the amendment forward.
  Mr. AMASH. Madam Chairwoman, when I go back to my district, I hear 
from my constituents and they always ask: What is wrong with 
Washington? We can see what is wrong with Washington right here. We 
have Republicans for months saying: We are worried about FISA abuse. 
FISA is out of control.
  Here we are trying to limit FISA, and they are running against it. 
They are saying: No, we can't limit FISA. Democrats say: We want to 
hold the President in check. Executive powers are out of control.
  We have an amendment to hold the President in check. This is our time 
to stand up for the American people.
  I am sick of going home and telling them that neither side wanted to 
defend their rights. I want to thank Ms. Lofgren for joining me in this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the ranking member of the 
committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, may I ask the Chair how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairwoman, section 702 authorizes the 
intelligence community to target the communications of non-U.S. persons 
located outside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes.
  This FISA section 702 program is an important tool for the 
intelligence community to gather foreign intelligence information to 
protect the homeland against international terrorism, weapons 
proliferation, hostile actions, cyber actors, and other threats to the 
national security.

  Importantly, its focus is on foreigners located abroad. It does not 
allow the intelligence community to target U.S. persons. Section 702 
collections already include significant protection for civil liberties 
and privacy.
  While the amendment may be well-intentioned, I fear it will upset the 
delicate balance reflected in current wording of this provision. The 
recent comprehensive review and bipartisan reauthorization of section 
702 by Congress would strongly suggest that additional changes to the 
program without a full review of the potential impact is ill-advised.
  Madam Chairwoman, intelligence officials from the Obama 
administration and the Trump administration have asserted, as FBI 
Director Christopher Wray recently reiterated, that section 702 is one 
of the most viable tools we have in our toolbox to keep America safe. 
Accordingly, I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I am opposed to the amendment, and yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlelady from 
California.
  Bipartisan majorities of the House and Senate have recognized the 
national security importance of the section 702 program, that it can 
help protect our country and respect the privacy of our citizens, and 
that these goals need not be in conflict. This near consensus was 
founded in part on recognition of the 702 program's close and regular 
examination by the DNI and DOJ, by the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court, by The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, 
by inspectors general--and of course, by the judiciary and intelligence 
committees in the House and Senate.
  Even against this background, I have long supported privacy and 
transparency reforms that preserve the undoubted value of the section 
702 program to U.S. National security. For that reason, I joined in 
strongly backing the bipartisan compromise legislation, which imposed 
new privacy safeguards while reauthorizing section 702 activities. And 
I do strongly believe that, as Members of Congress charged with 
upholding the Constitution, we should be actively and always looking 
for ways to shore up section 702's already rigorous regime for 
protecting the rights of U.S. persons--in a fashion that still permits 
the IC to accomplish its mission.
  And that is where I think the amendment goes too far, and needlessly 
risks doing serious harm to what is perhaps our government's most 
valuable mechanism for obtaining the communications of foreigners 
overseas.
  With its addition of new, unnecessary and confusing legal 
requirements, the amendment

[[Page H4720]]

would risk the section 702 program's temporary cessation, while the IC 
takes steps to understand and comply with the amendment's mandates.
  Moreover, as written the amendment strongly suggests that the IC 
immediately would have to stop collecting the communications of a 
suspected terrorist abroad, simply because the suspected terrorist was 
communicating with an individual thought to be within in the United 
States. The IC should not be required to cease collection of 
intelligence in situations where it is entirely appropriate to collect 
it, and where we most badly need to IC to do so--such as the Najibullah 
Zazi case, where the IC detected and foiled what would have been a 
deadly terrorist plot to detonate explosives on subway lines in 
Manhattan.
  The amendment would also deny funds for so-called ``abouts'' 
collection, which the IC on its own decided to discontinue in 2017--and 
thus go well beyond the compromise carefully crafted by Congress the 
following year. Under existing law such collection might resume one 
day, provided the IC first convinces the courts and congress that such 
collection can be conducted in a manner that fully safeguards privacy 
rights. The IC should not be banned from collecting intelligence in a 
fashion that protects privacy, if it can devise an appropriate means of 
doing so. And yet that is precisely what the amendment would take off 
the table, in advance.
  I see no reason to disturb the balance that we struck in 2018, after 
such extensive and rigorous deliberation. And I see many, strong 
reasons to leave in place this critically necessary intelligence 
gathering tool, on which our intelligence professionals rely every day.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, 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 Michigan 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1600

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 25 will 
not be offered.


                Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mrs. Dingell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Madam 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 248, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 249, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, our servicemen and -women suffer from arthritis at 
disproportionally high rates compared to the civilian population. 
Arthritis is the leading cause of disability among our veterans and the 
second leading cause of medical discharge among members of the Army. 
However, there is currently no dedicated funding for researching 
arthritis among our servicemembers and veterans.
  This bipartisan amendment, which my friend from West Virginia, 
Congressman McKinley, and I have worked on as co-chairs of the 
Congressional Arthritis Caucus, would provide dedicated funding for 
arthritis research in the military.
  Establishing this line of funding within the CDMRP will help improve 
our understanding of arthritis in the military. While some CDMRP money 
is already used to research arthritis, this funding can fluctuate from 
year to year and is not specified in statute. Our researchers need 
stable, consistent funding in order to complete the long-term studies 
needed to better understand this disease.
  I am proud that our amendment is supported by over 20 veterans 
service organizations.
  I thank Chairman Visclosky for his consideration of this proposal and 
for his commitment to continue working with us on future appropriations 
bills to include arthritis research. With this commitment, we are 
prepared to withdraw the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


        Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Madam 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 241, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,333,000)''.
       Page 245, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,333,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, 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. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Visclosky and his staff for their tireless 
dedication to putting together such a comprehensive Defense 
appropriations bill. The work the gentleman's committee does to ensure 
our Armed Forces has the funding it needs keeps America safe. I am 
grateful for his dedication to this important task.
  I am pleased to offer my amendment that would increase funding for 
life support systems on Ohio-class submarines. This program is 
important for ensuring the Ohio class reaches its 42-year service life 
extension.
  Submarines are a critical component of our Nation's nuclear triad, 
which ensures the United States has a constant deterrent against 
nuclear strikes from nations that would do us harm. To keep this triad 
strong, we must ensure that the Ohio-class submarines remain in 
operation until the Columbia class can take their place.
  Putting modern, low-pressure life support systems on our submarines 
is an essential part of ensuring the longevity of this program.
  I understand the chairman's concerns about the Navy's implementation 
of submarine life support systems. When Congress appropriates money, it 
must be spent efficiently and promptly. I believe this program should 
be funded at the historic level of $11,968,000.
  Madam Chair, I will offer to withdraw my amendment and work with the 
chairman to ensure the Navy effectively manages this program and that 
Congress provides robust support for it in future years.
  I am asking the chairman if we will work together on this important 
issue moving forward.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, just to address the issue for a moment, I 
really appreciate the gentlewoman for bringing this to all Members' 
attention. She is absolutely correct that this is a very important 
program.
  I will point out that I think the most important point she made is 
that the Navy and the government have to be very efficient in the 
expenditure of these funds. It is an important program, but I would 
point out that the Navy has awarded contracts late for the last few 
years, causing the program to remain perpetually behind.
  Again, though, I understand that what the gentlewoman and the 
committee want is to let us get this back on track and make sure it is 
properly funded. I absolutely would be happy to work with the 
gentlewoman on this.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman, 
and I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


        Amendment No. 34 Offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Madam 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 H4721]]


  

       Page 247, line 17, insert ``(increased by $5,000,0000) 
     (reduced by $5,000,000)'' after the dollar amount.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentlewoman 
from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.


Modification to Amendment No. 34 Offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire

  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Madam Chair, my amendment inadvertently 
contains a numerical drafting error that would increase spending. 
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified with 
the form that I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       The amendment is modified to read as follows:
       Page 247, line 17, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000) 
     (reduced by $5,000,000)'' after the dollar amount.

  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
  The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I am pleased to offer my amendment that addresses an 
important supply chain issue related to defense electronics.
  Driven by environmental regulations outside the United States, the 
worldwide $1 trillion commercial electronics industry converted to 
lead-free components over 15 years ago. Despite this global transition, 
the United States aerospace and defense electronics industry continues 
to rely upon lead-based assembly technology because lead-based assembly 
is considered structurally superior.
  To ensure the reliability and performance of lead-free technology for 
defense and aerospace electronics, additional research and development 
are needed. Because the DOD electronics market is just a small fraction 
of the broader electronics market, commercial industry needs Federal 
leadership in this area.
  As technological advances in civilian electronics continue to 
incorporate lead-free technology, this problem will only become more 
acute. As a result, the DOD cannot rapidly integrate state-of-the-art 
lead-free components, including semiconductors, for cutting-edge 
technologies like hypersonics, artificial intelligence, and robotics 
that impact numerous DOD weapons systems.
  This disconnect between the defense and commercial electronics 
industries can no longer be ignored.
  My amendment, which I am offering with my colleague Representative 
Brad Schneider, emphasizes the importance of the DOD funding research 
to increase the capacity of the defense industry to produce lead-free 
electronics that meet the performance requirements of our Nation's 
Armed Forces. This research will ensure that American manufacturers can 
supply the men and women who keep us safe with modern, resilient 
technology that meets their unique needs.
  I look forward to working with the DOD and the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee to ensure funding for the development of this program.
  Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me 
time and simply would suggest that the committee has no opposition to 
the amendment.
  I would point out that, again, she struck a chord with me when she 
talked about the supply chain problems we have in the United States of 
America across the industrial sector.
  Again, I appreciate her raising this and offering the amendment.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlewoman 
from New Hampshire will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 36 will not be offered.


               Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Visclosky

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Texas, 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 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.
       Page 246, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $9,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, this amendment provides an additional $9 
million to address one of the Army's top unfunded priorities, future 
vertical lift.
  The funding would allow the Army to speed up the acquisition timeline 
for the replacement of the Black Hawk helicopter, which first entered 
service in 1979. The additional range and payload that will be 
available via the Black Hawk replacement will ensure that our troops 
are provided with the most technologically advanced equipment.
  The Army currently enjoys a competitive advantage over our 
adversaries, and investment into future vertical lift will ensure that 
we continue to have that advantage.
  Madam Chair, I ask for support of this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, the Army identified a $75.6 million 
unfunded requirement for the future vertical lift program, and this 
amendment helps to address that by adding an additional $9 million, as 
the chairman brought out, to this program.
  Madam Chair, this is a good program. I support it, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, 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 Indiana will 
be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 39 will not be offered.


               Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Visclosky

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 40 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Jeffries) and have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000) (increased by $500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, this amendment deals with additional 
funds for reporting on climate change impacts on our national security.
  I would point out that, in 2014, the Department of Defense issued a 
climate change adaptation roadmap that

[[Page H4722]]

described the very serious and significant ways that climate change 
threatens the national security of the United States of America.

                              {time}  1615

  It found that rising global temperatures, changing precipitation 
patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will 
intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and 
conflict.
  It will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic disease, 
disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural 
disasters in regions across the globe.
  Earlier this year, the department released another report that found 
that more than two-thirds of the military's operationally critical 
installations are threatened by climate change.
  It noted that the effects of a changing climate are a national 
security issue, with potential impacts to the Department of Defense's 
missions, operational plans, and installations.
  As an example, the Air Force currently oversees 15 radar sites in 
Alaska. Since the Cold War, they have monitored the airspace above much 
of the Bering Sea and the Arctic. When the radar sites were selected in 
the 1950s, along Alaska's coastlines and deep in its interior, melting 
permafrost and coastal erosion were not yet long-term strategic 
concerns for the department.
  However, the melting of permafrost is happening more rapidly than 
Pentagon officials predicted, and it is causing the ground beneath the 
sites to crumble. Three radar sites in Alaska were forced to close in 
2007 due in part to soil erosion.
  A 2014 Government Accountability Office report found that the 
installations are seeing erosion that the Pentagon did not expect to 
occur until 2040.
  This amendment ensures that the Department of Defense continues to 
provide scientifically based information about the effects of climate 
change on national security.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, just 5 months ago, the Department of 
Defense completed a public assessment titled ``Report on Effects of a 
Changing Climate to the Department of Defense.''
  The report accompanying the bill includes further directive language 
regarding additional reporting requirements for the department.
  How many reports do we need on this topic in 1 year? This amendment 
is extraneous and unnecessary; I urge my colleagues to oppose it; and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I would simply state that the department 
must be transparent in reporting the strategic, operational, and 
financial costs of climate change.
  I would ask support for 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 Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, 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 Indiana will 
be postponed.


            Amendment No. 41 Offered by Miss Gonzalez-Colon

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Madam 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 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,356,000) (reduced by $4,356,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentlewoman 
from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Madam Chair, today I rise to 
speak on behalf of the bipartisan amendment No. 41 to division C of the 
Defense appropriations division to H.R. 2740.
  My amendment seeks to provide an increase of $4,356,000 to further 
support the Department of Defense's Innovative Readiness Training 
program, bringing its total recommended funding level for fiscal year 
2020 to $30 million. This proposed increase is made possible by 
reducing the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide account by the 
same amount.
  The Innovative Readiness Training program, IRT program, is a 
Department of Defense military training opportunity, exclusive to the 
United States and its territories, that delivers joint opportunities to 
increase deployment readiness.
  Simultaneously, IRT provides key services with lasting benefits for 
communities across our Nation, thus strengthening the bonds between the 
American people and the U.S. military.
  Each year, this program enhances deployment readiness for 
approximately 7,000 servicemembers by providing hands-on, real-world 
training experience for mission-essential tasks, often in remote or 
underserved areas across the country.
  Military units have an opportunity to refine their engineering, 
healthcare, diving, and transportation skills by performing services 
and developing projects for American communities that otherwise would 
not have the resources to conduct them on their own.
  In 2018, the services led 39 missions across the United States. My 
constituents in Puerto Rico are among those who have greatly benefited 
from this program.
  A year after Hurricane Maria devastated our island, 200 
servicemembers participated in two of these missions to provide no-cost 
medical and construction services to local residents.
  Through the Ola de Esperanza Sanadora mission, they assisted local 
authorities in providing medical, dental, and optometry care to over 
3,800 patients. Similarly, they partnered with Habitat for Humanity to 
build a three-family home designed to resist hurricanes in the Quintana 
neighborhood of San Juan.
  Earlier this year, the 1st Mission Support Command and the U.S. Army 
Reserve Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico soldiers joined more than 500 
members from different DOD components in a mission on the island that 
provided medical service to over 9,000 patients, delivered over 2,000 
eyeglasses, and completed over 10,000 medical procedures.
  Participating units, therefore, increased their readiness and 
obtained valuable, hands-on training experience while helping thousands 
of their fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico receive the care they 
need.
  Other communities across the Nation have also benefited greatly from 
this program. In Alaska, as an example, the program supports missions 
like Operation Arctic Care, which provided roving medical and dental 
care to rural and Alaska Native villages.
  In the Northern Mariana Islands--and I want to thank Congressman 
Sablan for being an original cosponsor of this amendment--these 
missions have helped renovate and improve the Tinian Health Clinic.
  In Mississippi, this mission has partnered with a local foundation in 
a multi-year mission to build a special-needs camp.
  Given how these missions have been vital in improving our 
servicemembers' readiness while simultaneously offering quality 
services to thousands of Americans, I strongly believe Congress should 
provide as much support as possible for the program. This amendment 
seeks to do that.
  I commend Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member Calvert, and the House 
Appropriations Committee for including a $10 million increase above the 
President's budget request, and my amendment simply seeks to complete 
this effort by providing an additional increase to bring the program 
total budget to $30 million, consistent with the recommended funding 
level in the Senate version for the fiscal year 2020.
  Madam Chair, I want to conclude by thanking my colleague Congressman

[[Page H4723]]

Sablan from the Northern Mariana Islands for cosponsoring my amendment. 
I urge my colleagues to join this effort, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Norman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today because 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 238, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,500,000) (increased by $7,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment would establish a pilot program that would allow an 
expeditionary sea base, ESB, to be equipped with weaponry to defend 
itself.
  This pilot program is needed because, currently, an ESB must be 
accompanied by a destroyer when on a mission. To deploy a destroyer, 
operational costs add up to $33 million.
  If the $7.5 million pilot program--which is the cost--is passed, then 
this expeditionary sea base will be able to protect itself and a 
destroyer will no longer be required to accompany it, allowing the 
destroyer to complete other missions.
  This pilot program does not mean the ESB will go out actively using 
its weaponry. Rather, the intent of this program would be to free up 
the destroyer for other missions without leaving an ESB defenseless.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for this amendment. 
They make that fine ship in San Diego, California, and we want to 
defend it to the hilt, so we appreciate this amendment.
  It makes the bill a better bill, and I thank the gentleman for 
bringing that bill forward.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Chair, I would just say, this is a return on 
investment. This is a good investment that will save this country a lot 
of money with its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Ted Lieu of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam 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:

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to issue export licenses for the following defense 
     items, including defense articles, defense services, and 
     related technical data, described in the certification 
     Transmittal Numbers DDTC-17-079, DDTC-17-094, DDTC 17-112, 
     DDTC-17-126, DDTC-17-128, DDTC-18-013, DDTC-18-029, DDTC-18-
     030, DDTC-18-050, DDTC-18-080, DDTC-18-103, DDTC-18-109, 
     DDTC-18-110, DDTC-19-001, 17-0B, 17-BM, 17-CR, 17-CU, 18-AU, 
     18-BE, 19-AA and 19-AR.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ted Lieu) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  On May 24, the Trump administration notified Congress that it was 
declaring a so-called emergency to bypass congressional review of 22 
arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
  I am offering this amendment because there is no emergency, just a 
conflict in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians with U.S.-made 
weapons and a Congress that is tired of being complicit. That is why we 
voted last month to pass bipartisan, bicameral resolutions to end U.S. 
support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
  Despite that clear signal from Congress, the administration decided 
to use an emergency power to go around us and push through an unpopular 
arms package that would likely be used in that conflict.
  That package includes an unprecedented proposal to move production of 
precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia, essentially outsourcing 
jobs to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
  Simply put, this is an egregious abuse of the emergency authority we 
gave the executive and a direct affront to our institution.
  To add insult to injury, the arms in question aren't even available 
to be exported. As Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military 
Affairs Clarke Cooper testified last week, most of these weapons 
systems will not be ready for months, if not potentially years.
  Our arm sales process was designed to include congressional review 
specifically to ensure that each case serves U.S. interests.
  If the administration believes that these sales can stand on the 
merits, they should make their case to Congress. Until they do, we must 
use the power of the purse and every other avenue to block them.
  I also want to thank Chairman Visclosky for his leadership and 
support as well. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, at the outset, it should be clear: There is 
no country that is more hostile to the interests of the United States 
and our allies, especially Israel, than Iran.
  In fact, as we debate this bill, the U.S. and our partners in the 
region are under serious threat from Iran and its proxies.
  As our commander of the U.S. Central Command, General Frank McKenzie, 
said recently, the Iranian threat remains imminent.
  Just last week, Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces used a type of 
magnetic mine--a limpet mine--to attack Japanese and Norwegian oil 
tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

                              {time}  1630

  In addition to this threat to international freedom of navigation and 
commerce, Iran's Houthi proxies have launched sustained attacks on 
airports and other infrastructure targets within Saudi Arabia.
  In this context, it is clearly in the national interest of the United 
States to ensure that our partners in the region have the capabilities 
they need to counter a hostile Iran.
  The sweeping scope of this amendment, however, seeks to block all 22 
of these arms sales instead of those few that may be of particular 
concern. For example, it would attempt to prevent the transfer of 
precision-guided munitions to our ally Jordan, as well as a number of 
other seemingly noncontroversial cases.
  Madam Chair, we need to work with our partners in the region to 
accomplish common objectives on counterterrorism and in deterring Iran, 
including through timely U.S. defense transfers.
  Arbitrarily stopping a large number of arms sales, regardless of 
their sensitivity, will hinder the ability of our combatant commander 
to accomplish these goals. It will also undermine the reputation of the 
United States as a reliable security partner and provide opportunities 
to China or Russia to erode U.S. influence in the region.

[[Page H4724]]

  I want to acknowledge that all of us are deeply concerned with the 
ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen. I support the efforts of the 
executive branch to work with the U.N. Special Envoy toward a political 
resolution of this conflict.
  It is also unfortunate that the Department of State decided to 
utilize an emergency waiver authority on the arms sales that are the 
subject of this amendment. Congressional oversight over arms transfers 
is an important responsibility, and it would have been best had these 
sensitive matters been handled through the traditional consultative 
process.
  This is not the appropriate vehicle to vindicate those congressional 
prerogatives. That responsibility rests with the Foreign Affairs and 
Foreign Relations Committees, and not in this bill.
  Madam Chair, accordingly, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments of 
the gentleman from California.
  I simply note that the issue here is not whether we should sell arms 
to our allies, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The 
issue is whether Congress should have a role or we are going to be 
completely bypassed by this administration.
  That is all this amendment seeks to do, to have Congress take a role 
in the way we have always taken a role in arms sales.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, 
and I appreciate the gentleman for offering the amendment.
  The operative word here is ``bypass.'' The administration has used an 
obscure, rarely used provision to skirt congressional review of arms 
sales with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
  The administration's lack of justification for using this emergency 
authority with respect to these sales is troubling, especially when you 
consider much of the equipment contained in these cases would not be 
delivered for months, as the gentleman from California rightfully 
pointed out.
  Congress is a coequal branch of government and has oversight 
responsibilities to review such cases before we sell major weapons 
systems to other countries. These review requirements are on the books 
for a reason, and this amendment helps to ensure that the law is 
adhered to and that Congress is respected and can meet its 
constitutional requirement.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, I compliment my colleague from California. 
This is something that is very serious, and obviously, we have been 
talking about it for a long time now.
  We are a coequal branch of government. We want the executive branch, 
no matter who is in the executive branch, to respect the fact that we 
are.
  That is clear to the people in this House. We have voted that way, 
and we have talked that way. We believe that what the administration 
did by calling these weapons ``emergency'' was not the right thing to 
do. It is clearly not an emergency. It is clearly a way of skirting 
around Congress. It is clearly a way of trying to not work with 
Congress.
  I think that it is time that the Congress takes back important 
things, such as declaring war, such as sending these things to our 
allies.
  I feel very, very strongly, and I think that my colleagues will, too, 
that Mr. Lieu should be supported in this.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, we need to stand by our allies and oppose 
Iran. This amendment is not helpful. I encourage all of our colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, 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 California 
will be postponed.


         Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Gallagher of Wisconsin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam 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 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $96,000,000)''.
       Page 246, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 247, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $76,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Last December, in lockstep with our NATO allies, the U.S. determined 
that Russia is in material breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear 
Forces, or INF, Treaty. This followed determinations by the State 
Department in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 that Russia has failed to 
comply with its INF obligations.
  As one of only two parties in the agreement, and the only party 
currently playing by the rules, the U.S. is subject to severe 
restrictions on our military capabilities faced by no other nation on 
Earth. This problem is especially acute in Asia, where the U.S. must 
project power across vast distances and with enormous logistics chains.
  While the original treaty was about intermediate-range nuclear 
weapons, China has seized upon the potential of conventional missiles 
of intermediate ranges, which are likewise banned under the INF. The 
Chinese military has invested in thousands of conventional ground-based 
missiles, roughly 95 percent of which would be prohibited by the treaty 
if Beijing were a signatory.
  This arsenal puts us on the wrong side of the cost competition. As 
you can see from this chart from the nonpartisan Center for Strategic 
and Budgetary Assessments, the U.S. military is dangerously outranged 
at intermediate distances.
  No matter how capable or affordable, our ships, fighters, and bombers 
will never be cheaper than ground-based missiles. This is a recipe for 
disaster, both in war and in peacetime competition.
  Two years ago, to remedy this, Congress began R&D funding for ground-
based conventional intermediate missiles. Now that the United States is 
months away from a post-INF world, Congress is threatening to undo this 
process by zeroing out R&D for these purely conventional missile 
systems.
  To be clear, early-stage R&D on intermediate missiles is allowable 
under the treaty. It is why we have been doing it over the past 2 
years.
  The cuts contained in this bill already go beyond what is mandated by 
the agreement. It would not only keep us unilaterally tied to a treaty 
that no one else is honoring, but it would also expand the scope of our 
commitment by blocking R&D funding.
  Madam Chair, this is insanity. No other conventional weapons system 
would ever be held to this standard. We wouldn't do it for planes. We 
wouldn't do it for ships. We wouldn't do it for tanks. Yet, we are 
doing it for missiles that would provide credible, dispersed, and 
lethal firepower.
  I understand that my colleagues, some on both sides of the aisle, 
have concerns on nuclear weapons. I understand. I appreciate that. I 
would welcome a conversation with any of my colleagues about 
prohibiting R&D dollars from going toward intermediate-range nuclear 
missiles.
  But despite the INF name, this amendment has nothing to do with 
nuclear weapons. This is all about conventional deterrence.
  Go talk to the men and women who are downrange in the Indo-Pacific 
Command who are, on a daily basis, dealing with the real-world 
ramifications of an increasingly unfavorable

[[Page H4725]]

conventional military balance. They will tell Members, and, indeed, 
they have told us on the Armed Services Committee, that deploying 
intermediate-range conventional missiles in Asia would help increase 
our deterrence and, therefore, improve our ability to avoid war, which 
is what it is all about.
  Madam Chair, I cannot be clear enough. By zeroing out R&D funding for 
intermediate-range conventional missiles, this bill undermines our 
ability to credibly deter aggression. Whatever we think about nuclear 
weapons, these cuts make them more important to American defense 
planning, not less, by reducing our options to restore growing 
imbalances in conventional power.
  This is a mistake that I fear will cost the United States in more 
ways than one. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which 
would restore funding for R&D for intermediate-range conventional 
missiles and provide the Department with the flexibility it needs to 
pursue this critical capability.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, the Russians are cheating on the INF 
Treaty. That does not mean we should compound the first problem by 
creating a second problem. Don't make a bad situation worse.
  Our energy and focus should remain on diplomacy and multilateral 
efforts to bring Russia back into compliance with the INF Treaty.
  The INF Treaty, which was signed by President Reagan in 1987, 
established an agreement between the United States, Russia, and a 
number of other countries to not field ground-launched cruise and 
ballistic missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. This 
treaty was instrumental in arresting the arms race, defusing tensions, 
and ultimately, bringing an end to the Cold War.
  I find it very concerning that, due to the President's suspension of 
compliance in February, the INF Treaty will be officially null and void 
on August 2. This was all done without exhausting all diplomatic 
efforts and with limited congressional input.
  The conditions established in the treaty are crucial to European 
security.
  I find it disingenuous that the statement of administration policy on 
this bill implies NATO endorses the U.S. developing an intermediate-
range cruise missile capability. The Brussels summit declaration by 
NATO heads of state and government in July 2018 stated that the INF 
Treaty has been crucial to Euro-Atlantic security and that we remain 
fully committed to the preservation of this landmark arms control 
treaty.

  The December 2018 statement by the NATO Foreign Ministers reinforced 
this by stating that the treaty had been crucial in upholding NATO's 
security for over 30 years.
  The February 2019 statement by the North Atlantic Council continued 
to call on Russia to return to compliance with the treaty. It did not 
endorse the development of INF-violating weapons by the U.S. or any 
other member of the alliance.
  NATO's official position on the treaty remains that NATO's focus is 
to preserve the INF treaty.
  There is no question Russia has not upheld its promises as a 
signatory to the treaty. However, I believe the irresponsible actions 
of the Russian Government do not require the U.S. to jump headlong into 
a costly and unnecessary arms race that will promote greater 
instability, which hearkens back to the policies and actions that 
defined the most perilous phases of the Cold War.
  This amendment would negate previous U.S. nonproliferation and arms 
control efforts. It is neither prudent nor wise.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Chair, I want to quickly say that a treaty that 
no one else is abiding by is merely a suicide pact with ourselves.
  Secondly, even if you disagree with my assessment of the INF, this 
limits our ability to conduct R&D, which isn't prohibited by the 
treaty.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I will be very quick.
  I am shocked: The Russians are cheating.
  Now that our treaty obligations are suspended, the United States 
needs to move forward with developing ground-launched INF missile 
capability.
  Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments, 
and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for this 
spirited debate.
  I just would ask that we consider what we want the world to look like 
in a post-INF environment, because that is where we are headed, and we 
have multiple options we need to pursue. We are limiting ourselves. We 
are taking a step backward if we do not approve this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I believe that it is necessary to maintain a credible 
and effective nuclear deterrence.
  I also strongly believe that multilateral diplomatic efforts, 
including the INF Treaty and other international agreements, that 
encourage all countries to restrain potentially bad behavior are key 
elements of U.S. national security.
  Beyond this particular amendment, it is my hope that the 
administration will reconsider its efforts to unilaterally abrogate 
from our national responsibility to uphold the INF Treaty, and instead, 
to work with Congress and our allies abroad to address and rectify 
long-standing arms control concerns with Russia and other global 
actors.
  I will continue to be a strong advocate for diplomacy and remain a 
willing and available partner to the administration and our colleagues 
in regard to this treaty and other important issues.
  Madam Chair, I do oppose the gentleman's amendment, and 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. CALVERT. Madam Chair, 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. 47 Offered by Mr. Gallagher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), 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 223, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $19,600,000)''.
       Page 238, line 2, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $19,600,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Chair, it is my privilege to offer my colleague, 
Ms. Cheney's, amendment to restore badly needed funding for Trident II 
Modifications relating to low-yield submarine-launched ballistic 
missile warheads.
  This amendment seeks to address an urgent operational requirement. 
Russia has a nuclear doctrine known as escalate to deescalate. This 
doctrine emphasizes using low-yield nuclear weapons against U.S. and 
allied forces on the battlefield.

[[Page H4726]]

  As the logic behind this doctrine goes, destroying large portions of 
NATO forces with low-yield nuclear weapons would leave allied decision-
makers with an unenviable decision between accepting Russian conquest 
and the effective end of NATO, or launching strategic nuclear weapons 
and ushering in a nuclear holocaust.
  In other words, they put the onus of escalation and all of the 
attendant international opprobrium on us.
  I don't know about you, but that does not sound like a good choice to 
me.
  The Nuclear Posture Review is actually clear on this subject: 
``Expanding flexible U.S. nuclear options now, to include low-yield 
options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence 
against regional aggression . . . will raise the nuclear threshold and 
help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage 
in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear weapons employment less 
likely.''
  Critics may argue that we have already had low-yield weapons in our 
arsenal and we do not need a submarine-launched variant. They also 
argue against displacing strategic weapons with low-yield options in 
limited missile SSBN missile tubes.
  But as the Nuclear Posture Review finds, sea-launched low-yield 
weapons provide tangible advantages compared to dual-capable aircraft.
  I quote again: ``A low-yield SLBM warhead and SLCM will not require 
or rely on host nation support to provide deterrent effect. They will 
provide additional diversity in platforms, range, and survivability, 
and a valuable hedge against future nuclear `break out' scenarios.''
  I just would emphasize, to close, the findings from the Nuclear 
Posture Review are not partisan. This amendment is actually advancing a 
bipartisan position.
  Former Obama Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has gone on record 
saying: ``My views are reflected in the latest Nuclear Posture 
Review.''
  Jim Miller, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the Obama 
administration, has argued that ``Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis' 2018 
Nuclear Posture Review offers continuity with past U.S. policy and 
plans, including those in the 2010 NPR. It deserves broad bipartisan 
support. Its proposal for a low-yield SLBM weapon and a new nuclear-
tipped sea-launched cruise missile are sensible responses to changed 
security conditions, especially Russia and North Korea.''
  We have heard time and again from this body, rightly, that we need to 
push back on Russian aggression. On this, we are unified as a body. 
This is a tangible step to do so.
  As General Hyten, head of U.S. Strategic Command, has argued, this 
capability is: `` . . . necessary to our strategic deterrence mission 
and will serve to disabuse any adversary of the mistaken perception 
they can escalate their way to victory.''
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment on a 
bipartisan basis, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I, again, strongly oppose the gentleman's 
amendment. This amendment would provide funding for the deployment of 
the ill-conceived low-yield nuclear warhead on Ohio-class ballistic 
missile submarines.
  I believe that deploying this warhead would amplify the risk of a 
devastating nuclear conflict with Russia by reducing the threshold of 
nuclear use and increasing the risk of miscalculation.
  Deploying the W76-2 warhead on ballistic missile submarines carries 
especially great risk.
  I would ask the Members of this body to consider, if we deploy a low-
yield warhead aboard our nuclear submarines, would Russia regard such 
weapons as less of a threat than our existing submarine-launched 
nuclear missiles?
  If we were to use such a weapon, even in response to a Russian first 
use of low-yield weapons, would Russia be likely to act with restraint, 
or would Russian leaders instead assume that we have initiated a 
strategic nuclear attack, and respond in kind?
  Do we really believe that any nuclear exchange can avoid escalation 
by using low-yield weapons?
  The significant danger of miscalculation is greater than any marginal 
benefit we might gain from having another low-yield capability in our 
nuclear arsenal.
  I would point out that suggesting that barring the deployment of this 
is akin to unilateral disarmament is simply not true.
  This bill includes robust funding for maintaining and modernizing our 
nuclear arsenal. The bill includes more than $712 million for the 
development of the Long-Range Standoff Weapon. It provides $1.6 billion 
for the Columbia-class Submarine and over $3 billion for the continued 
development of the B-21 bomber.
  This bill does cut excessive, unproven nuclear programs that generate 
significant risks without appreciably enhancing our security or that of 
our allies, but those looking for unilateral disarmament in this bill 
will not find it.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, do you trust the Russians? I don't trust 
the Russians.
  Those who think they are making the world safer by refusing to 
support the programs should remember the ancient Latin adage, ``If you 
want peace, prepare for war.''
  That has never been more applicable than in regard to this program.
  Madam Chair, this amendment is vital to maintaining deterrence and 
peace. I would urge my colleagues to support it.
  I might point out that the Russians are under the perception that 
this is a strategic imperative from their perspective. So from my 
perspective, let's remove that misconception and vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert) for his strong words in support.
  Madam Chair, I urge all my colleagues to join us in standing up 
against Russian aggression.
  In order to implement the National Defense Strategy, we have to find 
a way to move to conventional deterrence by denial as opposed to 
putting all of our eggs in the basket of strategic deterrence by 
punishment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, in closing, I wish to emphasize that we 
should not use the most survivable leg of our triad as a tactical 
warfighting platform.
  It is imperative for the House to reaffirm Ronald Reagan's clear-eyed 
admonition that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and 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. CALVERT. Madam Chair, 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. 50 Offered by Ms. Blunt Rochester

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Madam 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 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000).''

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentlewoman 
from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Delaware.
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my

[[Page H4727]]

amendment to the division C Defense appropriations of H.R. 2740.
  I applaud my colleagues for including expanded authorities in the 
fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow 
the Defense Department's Space-Available Flights program to benefit 
veterans with 100 percent service-connected disability.
  As you may know, the Space-A program offers free military air travel 
to eligible participants if there is available space on a flight 
heading to a destination within the continental United States.
  Prior to the fiscal year 2019 NDAA, the Space-A program provided 
Active Duty, reservists, retirees, and certain family members with this 
benefit.
  Space-A is an example of programs operated by the military that can 
and do work for the American people.
  Expanding the benefit to include 100 percent disabled veterans was 
common sense, and will help those veterans visit their family, old 
friends from the service, and even seek services for medical and mental 
health treatment with the best possible healthcare providers.
  For 100 percent disabled veterans in Delaware, the expansion of 
Space-A offered an especially convenient travel alternative due to the 
Dover Air Force Base's central location within the State.
  Many such communities across the country are similarly improved 
thanks to this program.
  While the effort to expand access to this program to some of our 
Nation's veterans was well-intentioned, I have heard from some veterans 
that there may have been an unintended consequence.
  The new authorities do not allow caregivers or spouses to travel with 
eligible veterans as part of the program. For many veterans that are 
rated as 100 percent disabled, the inability to have their caregiver or 
spouse join them on the flight effectively disqualifies them from 
utilizing this incredible program.
  We must ensure that all eligible veterans have equal and fair access 
to the benefits they have earned.
  President Lincoln made it clear that it is our country's duty to care 
and assist those that had borne the battle on behalf of the country, 
and it is our duty as a country to follow through on that promise.
  That is why I request that the Department of Defense provide to 
Congress an assessment of feasibility or possible issues in expanding 
eligible participants to include spouses and caregivers when traveling 
with 100 percent disabled veterans.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on improving this benefit 
afforded to these veterans.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I commend the gentlewoman for her work with the committee to make all 
of us aware of the lack of support that our veterans are facing on the 
space-available flights. I am happy to report that, because of 
congressional actions such as hers and her adamant action on this 
behalf, the Department is updating their air transportation eligibility 
requirements to expand space-available privileges in no little reason 
because of the gentlewoman's actions, and I do support her amendment.
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, 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 Delaware 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 51 Offered by Ms. Jayapal

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam 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:

        At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for continued research on the Long-Range Standoff 
     missile (LRSO).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Visclosky for his 
leadership on the Defense appropriations bill, as well as Mr. McGovern, 
our Rules Committee chair, for making this amendment in order.
  My amendment deals with one particular piece of the administration's 
escalation of our nuclear warfighting capability, and that is the long-
range standoff weapon, or LRSO. This new nuclear-armed cruise missile 
does not add to our country's already strong strategic deterrent. 
Instead, it performs a redundant purpose that can already be 
accomplished with the standoff capability of other weapons systems.
  The CBO estimates that, over 10 years, canceling the production of 
this weapon would save us about $13 billion. That is $13 billion that 
could go into education or infrastructure or healthcare or housing or 
even investments in foreign assistance and diplomacy that would 
actually keep us safer.
  I am deeply concerned, Madam Chair, that continuing to pour more and 
more money into building up our nuclear arsenal puts us down a 
dangerous course. Just this past weekend, we found ourselves in yet 
another escalation of tensions with Iran, with the Secretary of State 
saying that the administration is ``considering a full range of 
options,'' including military options in response to the attack on two 
tankers in the Gulf of Oman. And just last night, President Trump 
announced that he is sending another 1,000 American troops to the 
Middle East.
  Meanwhile, let me remind my colleagues that this administration has 
recklessly torn up former President Reagan's Intermediate-Range Nuclear 
Forces, or INF, Treaty with Russia, pulled out of President Obama's 
historic nonproliferation accord with Iran, and escalated inflammatory 
tensions and rhetoric with some of the world's most powerful nuclear-
armed states.
  The President's agenda outlined in his 2018 nuclear posture review 
would also resurrect former nuclear capabilities that bipartisan 
administrations have wisely eliminated. According to many expert 
observers, some of the upgrades made to our nuclear program in the past 
few years could be interpreted as plans for a ``first strike.''
  Let me be clear, the Trump administration's plan to develop the LRSO 
cruise missile is not only wasteful, but potentially dangerous. It will 
make our country, in my opinion, less safe. The weapon is expected to 
be significantly more capable than the cruising system it is replacing. 
It will be likely harder to detect, have a longer range, fly faster, 
and be more accurate. The weapon will also be deployed on advancing 
penetrating bombers, which are less detectable and designed to 
infiltrate enemy air defenses.
  In contrast, the system that the LRSO is replacing is only carried by 
the B-52, which flies relatively slowly and is easily spotted by radar. 
As a result, the new cruise missile and bomber could allow attacks on 
an array of targets without being detected first, and that could lead 
to devastating miscalculation and, potentially, to accidental nuclear 
war.
  Madam Chair, don't just take may word for it. Let me tell you that 
former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis stated that he is not sold on 
the LRSO. Why are we appropriating money to something that the former 
Secretary of Defense for the Republican administration is not sold on?
  In a Washington Post op-ed in 2015, William Perry, Secretary of 
Defense from 1994 to 1997, and Andy Weber, Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense

[[Page H4728]]

Programs from 2009 to 2014, wrote about the LRSO: ``Some have argued 
that a new nuclear-capable air-launched cruise missile is necessary to 
allow future Presidents the `flexibility' to engage Russia or China in 
limited nuclear war. That is Cold War thinking, and it is dangerous. 
Such `tactical' use of nuclear weapons would be a grave mistake.''
  Our nuclear weapons arsenal is about deterrent capabilities, not 
warfighting. It is troubling, then, that proponents of the LRSO, 
including the Defense Department, have said that the missile is needed 
for capabilities ``beyond deterrence.''
  The Pentagon argues that the LRSO could be used to respond 
``proportionately to a limited nuclear attack.'' I would argue that 
this is dangerous Cold War thinking and that there is no such thing as 
a limited nuclear war.
  My amendment is specifically focused on halting development of the 
LRSO, which wouldn't be deployed until the early 2030s, but we also 
have to look at this weapon and the message that it is sending as part 
of this administration's dangerous escalation of our nuclear posture. 
This President has joked about his nuclear button being ``bigger and 
more powerful'' than Kim Jong-un's. This is terrifying, unacceptable, 
and it is our duty to exert congressional oversight on this issue.
  By canceling this weapon, we can send a signal that there is no such 
thing as limited nuclear annihilation, and instead of promoting weapons 
that enable nuclear warfighting, we can affirm that a nuclear war can 
never be won.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of 
2020 funds for development of a long-range standoff weapon program.
  A long-range standoff missile will be a nuclear-armed air-launched 
cruise missile that the U.S. Air Force is scheduled to first deploy in 
the early 2030s.
  The LRSO is necessary for maintaining the deterrent capability 
currently provided by a rapidly aging air-launched cruise missile. 
According to the Department of Defense, the current air-launched cruise 
missile is already decades beyond its originally planned service time.

  As General John Hayden, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, has 
stated: ``The ALCM is encountering sustainability and viability issues 
from age-related material failures . . . and diminishing manufacturing 
sources. Parts and materials designed for a 10-year service life are 
now 35 years old and are obsolete.''
  In addition to severe problems with maintenance and reliability, the 
ALCM has a significant degraded ability to survive modern air defense 
systems. We also need the long-range standoff weapon because 
conventional air-launched cruise missiles are unable to effectively 
meet the same deterrence requirements.
  Madam Chair, sustaining the nuclear standoff capability in the air 
leg of the U.S. strategic triad strengthens our deterrence. 
Conventional weapons are not capable of fulfilling the nuclear-armed 
cruise missile's contribution to, and role in, an effective deterrence 
and reassurance of U.S. allies.
  Effective deterrence requires that an adversary believes that the 
United States can and may respond in kind to a nuclear attack.
  For these reasons, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I appreciate the perspective of the gentlewoman as well, and I would 
point out that, during the day today, I have risen in opposition to two 
different nuclear policy issues that would increase spending in our 
bill. I would like to point out I am opposed, however, to the 
gentlewoman's amendment, and her bill does take several actions related 
to the oversight of the administration's multiple, ongoing nuclear 
weapon efforts.
  First, in the bill, we do reduce the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent 
program by $108.7 million.
  Second, the bill denies $19.6 million requested by the administration 
to deploy a low-yield nuclear warhead on submarine-launched ballistic 
missiles.
  Third, it denies nearly $100 million requested by the administration 
to develop two new missile systems that would not be compliant with the 
INF Treaty.
  Fourth, it requires the Navy to submit a report on the cost, 
requirements, and other matters related to a nuclear submarine-launched 
cruise missile, which is still in the planning stage.
  I would emphasize to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
this bill does not take a reflexive or ideological position. This bill 
is the result of thorough oversight, and the committee has striven for 
a balanced policy. I simply believe this amendment goes too far, and I 
am opposed to it.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, 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 Washington 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Crow

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 59 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. CROW. Madam 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 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $13,000,000)''.
       Page 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $13,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Crow) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment supporting an additional $13 
million appropriation for the Readiness and Environmental Protection 
Integration Program, known as the REPI Program.
  Since 2003, REPI has been tasked with ensuring our military 
installation readiness by allowing the Department of Defense to enter 
into cost-sharing partnerships with State and local government to 
combat encroachment near military installations while simultaneously 
promoting environmental conservation. The underlying bill appropriates 
$87 million for this program, which is a slight increase over last 
year's enacted amount.
  I am thankful to Chairman Visclosky for his recognition of REPI's 
successes, which have established it as a model for intragovernmental 
and private partnerships, but there is still more work to be done to 
ensure that our military operations are able to proceed unimpeded and 
our natural habitats are protected.
  Over the past 15 years, the REPI Program has protected over half a 
million acres in 33 States by working with Federal, State, and local 
government entities, private conservation groups, and the military 
services. These partnerships not only lead to thoughtful encroachment 
mitigation solutions by expanding the landscape buffer around our 
military installations, but also result in burden sharing across the 
stakeholders. Over the life of the program, non-DOD REPI partners have 
shouldered nearly half of the financial burden of these projects, 
proving the cost-sharing value of the program.
  Not too long ago these partnerships were uncommon; however, the 
successful partnerships created by the REPI Program are lasting, 
beneficial to all participants, and often foster new arrangements that 
would not have happened otherwise. In total, the program is making a 
difference for the military and our installations.
  In my district, Buckley Air Force Base is a prime example of the 
significant win-win impact that the REPI

[[Page H4729]]

Program can have on the installations and the community. By working 
with partners like the Trust for Public Land and the Colorado 
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, the City of Aurora, the 
REPI Program was able to preserve nearly 300 acres of land.
  The environmental protection and antiencroachment measures undertaken 
at Buckley have protected agricultural and recreational lands while 
ensuring that Buckley Air Force Base has the land required to conduct 
operations and even grow to meet additional needs for decades to come.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, I just find it 
unnecessary. There is robust funding in the bill for this activity to 
fight encroachment on our military bases, and that is really kind of 
between the local government and local State and local groups.
  Madam Chair, I make that point, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman yielding 
again. I think the gentleman is doing good work here. The gentleman is 
correct that there was an increase of $2 million from $85 million from 
last year's fiscal year in our bill; however, it was a $12 million 
increase from the administration's request, so I do applaud him for his 
work.
  Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, I want to take the opportunity to speak about how the 
REPI program saves taxpayer dollars, supports military readiness, and 
preserves our environment.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment for an 
additional $13 million that is in line with the amount authorized in 
the NDAA that was marked up last week to ensure its valuable work can 
benefit more installations and communities.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, 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 Colorado 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Crow

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. CROW. Madam 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 248, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 249, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Crow) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to vastly increase 
funding for ALS research by $40 million through the Congressionally 
Directed Medical Research Programs at the Department of Defense. This 
is to build on the program's vision to improve treatment and find a 
cure for this disease, which poses far more questions than answers.
  In the United States, 15 people are diagnosed with ALS every day, 
with an estimated 16,000 Americans living with this degenerative 
disease. Commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease, the average 
survival time after diagnosis is only 3 years.
  Although an estimated 10 percent of ALS cases are inherited, more 
than 90 percent are sporadic, and medical research can't yet determine 
why. It is further complicated for veterans, as research suggests that 
there is a mutually inclusive relationship between ALS and military 
service. In fact, veterans who were deployed during the Gulf war are 
twice as likely to develop ALS.
  This disease also hits home for me in many ways. On March 18, our 
community lost Mike Cimbura to ALS. Mike was, first and foremost, a 
loving husband and father, but on top of that, he fought ALS 
ferociously to ensure that ALS will no longer be a hopeless diagnosis. 
He worked to get right-to-try legislation across the finish line to 
increase access to experimental treatments that would one day cure this 
disease.
  In my own family, we lost our dear cousin, Jeff Van Brunt, to this 
disease just last year. Jeff would have just celebrated his 40th 
birthday. He left behind his wonderful wife, Jill, and kids, Megan, 
William, Sophia, and Mark.
  In short, this disease knows no stranger, impacting communities and 
families across the country. This disease continues to take loved ones 
in our communities too early, and we need to continue to fight for 
funding to find treatments and a cure.
  I am extremely grateful to the chairman and his entire team for 
working to increase funding this year, but I want to be clear that we 
need to attack this disease more aggressively.
  It costs between $1 billion and $2 billion to find a treatment for 
ALS and can take up to 15 years to bring an effective ALS treatment to 
market. Furthermore, finding a cure would open up a path to finding 
cures for other diseases, like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple 
sclerosis, and many others.
  We owe this to our veterans. We owe this to every member of our 
community who should not have to face this disease without any hope for 
a cure.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


           Amendment No. 61 Offered by Mr. Cox of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61 
printed in part A of House Report 116-111.
  Mr. COX of California. Madam 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 223, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 248, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 249, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. Madam Chair, I thank the distinguished 
chairman as well as the distinguished ranking member for the great work 
with respect to this legislation.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which makes a 
modest adjustment to H.R. 2740. My amendment would increase funding for 
the Department of Defense Health Program by $10 million. This amendment 
is budget-neutral by reducing the Department of Defense's, the DOD's, 
Departmentwide operation maintenance fund by the same amount.
  The Defense Health Program oversees all medical and healthcare 
programs for the DOD, and the modification made by my amendment would 
ensure the Department has sufficient resources to fund vital medical 
research concerning traumatic brain injury, TBI; post-traumatic stress 
disorder, PTSD; and psychological health. This research would aid 
servicemembers and civilians alike.
  Over the past 10 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the 
number of servicemembers reported to have PTSD, and we see these 
increases in both active and nonactive servicemembers.
  Since 2001, over 2.7 million servicemembers have served in war zones 
in

[[Page H4730]]

Iraq and Afghanistan, and of those, 300,000 have been diagnosed with 
TBI. And the DOD estimates that 22 percent of all combat casualties in 
Iraq and Afghanistan are brain injuries.
  The cost of war not only harms our servicemembers who have 
experienced PTSD, but also the spouses, the parents, the children, and 
the families, who have hoped and prayed for the safe return of their 
loved ones. Unfortunately, we have discovered that the battle continues 
when the servicemembers return home with a PTSD, a TBI, or other 
nonphysical injury.
  Furthermore, whether or not PTSD is a greater risk to female veterans 
than male veterans is still largely unknown, and as women continue to 
serve in more active roles in the war and are increasingly exposed to 
combat situations, their likelihood of experiencing a PTSD, naturally, 
will rise. So more research is better to understand and help clinicians 
and other care providers to provide the necessary treatment before 
symptoms of PTSD become chronic.
  We must--we must--do more for those who sacrifice their lives for our 
freedom. We cannot let them fall through the cracks. That is why my 
amendment is so critical.
  With more of our troops returning from deployment over the next 
several years, we know that the number of PTSD cases in the U.S. is 
going to increase, but, today, only 40 percent of servicemembers find 
relief from current treatments.
  The Defense Health Programs provide crucial medical research to 
provide innovative solutions for servicemembers and family members 
facing PTSD throughout our Nation.
  As many may have seen, just on Sunday night, there are a number of 
innovative solutions, like stellate ganglion block, or SGB, that are 
currently being investigated and can be considered game changers in 
PTSD treatment. So, by investing in new groundbreaking technologies and 
therapies and trials, this will bring help to servicemembers who have 
tried current treatments but have found that nothing works.
  Madam Chair, my amendment would further invest resources to help 
inform health professionals on how to best treat our military 
personnel.
  Furthermore, the need for increased funding for PTSD is not limited 
to only the military, but our overall communities at large. PTSD 
conditions are on the rise in numerous communities and places 
throughout our Nation where violence is endemic.
  This vital research undertaken by the Department of Defense will 
benefit everyone: individuals, families, and those communities being 
affected today. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment and its critical funding for medical research concerning TBI, 
PTSD, psychological health that will help our servicemembers and our 
Nation as a whole.
  Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman in this 
regard, and I share his concerns.
  I would simply point out for the Record that, in the committee's 
markup, we have increased funding for this, before the gentleman's 
amendment, by 24 percent over last year's level.
  Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. COX of California. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, 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 California 
will be postponed.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SOTO. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I want to express my gratitude to the committee for the 
inclusion of report language in the bill noting the importance of 
obtaining advanced microelectronics manufacturing, in support of the 
defense industrial base, from trusted domestic suppliers.
  Ensuring quick, reliable, and secure access to leading-edge 
microelectronics is often a challenge. The changing global 
semiconductor industry and the increasing sophistication of U.S. 
adversaries require us to update our domestic microelectronics security 
framework by establishing a comprehensive, public-private partnership-
structured microelectronics cybersecurity center.
  This center can provide the defense industrial base with access to 
manufacturing resources to support antitamper devices, hardware 
security, and other evolving new concept technologies that support 
trusted and assured manufacturing, combined with advanced system 
integration and packaging technologies.
  The Defense-Wide Manufacturing Science and Technology Program enables 
the Department of Defense to advance reliable and secure state-of-the-
art technologies. The funding increase provided in this legislation, 
along with the increased funding for advanced manufacturing, will 
facilitate America's innovative, secure, and domestic foundry 
operations and greatly contribute to our national defense through the 
establishment of a microelectronics cybersecurity center structured as 
a public-private partnership.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
raising this important issue.
  The committee recognizes the urgent need to invest in trusted 
foundries, advanced microelectronics cybersecurity, and manufacturing 
capabilities that will translate our domestic research into fielded 
capabilities for the warfighter.

                              {time}  1730

  I look forward to working with the gentleman as we move forward on 
this bill.
  I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, I want to begin by thanking the 
committee for its work on the annual defense spending bill and for the 
opportunity to speak on issues that are critically important to my 
constituents in the Lowcountry.
  In 2017, Congress mandated that the military service branches 
consolidate their medical activities under the Defense Health Agency. 
These reforms were intended to eliminate redundancy and reduce costs 
while improving access to care.
  Unfortunately, the manner in which the Department is implementing 
these reforms all but guarantees this will not be the case. In my 
district in South Carolina, we are, unfortunately, already feeling the 
effects.
  Naval Hospital Beaufort provides quality care to an estimated 35,000 
servicemembers, retirees, and military families in South Carolina. Just 
last month, the Department eliminated the naval hospital's urgent care 
services.
  Given the administration's plan to eliminate another 18,000 medical 
billets nationwide, I am deeply concerned about the effects that 
further cuts may have on our military and their families.
  I am further troubled by the Department's lack of transparency into 
how they are making decisions with regard to the closure of medical 
services. In addition, the Department has yet to complete a detailed 
analysis of how cuts in medical services may impact surrounding 
communities, especially in rural areas where alternative treatment 
options may be limited.
  As a result, military families in underserved communities face an 
uncertain future. In Beaufort County, my constituents already face 
unreasonable wait times to see their doctors. Given the high 
concentration of veterans in my district, any reduction in services on 
Naval Hospital Beaufort is certain to further reduce access to care and 
degrade unit readiness in the Lowcountry.
  I thank the committee for its attention to this issue, and I ask that 
it continues to work with me to ensure servicemembers, retirees, and 
their families can continue to have access to the care that they need 
and deserve.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. The 
committee has been following the implication of the Department's 
medical reform efforts closely and certainly

[[Page H4731]]

shares many of the gentleman's concerns.
  The committee has requested the Department provide details of the 
analysis used to determine changes to medical services at the medical 
treatment facilities. This analysis would include details on the 
capacity of the local community, cost impacts on providers, and the 
risk to the served populations.
  I assure the gentleman from South Carolina that the committee will 
continue to monitor these issues closely.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman very much for 
acknowledging this problem. Going forward, I will continue to work with 
the Defense Subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee, as well as 
the Department, to make sure that military families in the Lowcountry 
are not left behind as a result of these reforms.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Horsford). The time of the gentleman from 
Indiana has expired.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. We are moving very close to the conclusion of debate 
on this portion of H.R. 2740, and my good friend ranking member Mr. 
Calvert and I would not be here without our staff.
  They have been exceptional, and I do want to thank them: Ariana 
Sarar, Jackie Ripke, Jennifer Chartrand, Johnnie Kaberle, Kiya 
Batmanglidj, Walter Hearne, Brooke Boyer, David Bortnick, Matt Bower, 
Bill Adkins, Hayden Milberg, Paul Kilbride, Shannon Richter, Sherry 
Young, Kyle McFarland, and Jamie McCormick.
  I also thank Joe DeVooght, Preston Rackauskas, Rebecca Keightley, and 
Christopher Romero, and finally, our two clerks, Becky Leggieri and 
Leslie Albright.
  Again, sincerely, I thank Mr. Calvert, just a tremendous partner, and 
all the members of our committee, as well as all the associate staff.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the ranking member 
from Texas (Ms. Granger), and I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Visclosky for the great working 
relationship we have had going through this legislation in detail. We 
do this for the men and women who serve the United States military. We 
want to make sure that they have the best quality of life and, 
obviously, that we procure the best weapons that are available to make 
sure that if ever we are in unfortunate circumstances, we do not have a 
fair fight.
  It has been a great experience. I also thank all the staff for the 
great work that they have done on both the majority and the minority.
  I do want to point out one thing to the chairman. There is going to 
be a meeting tomorrow at the White House, hopefully, about a budget 
agreement. Hope springs eternal, but, hopefully, we can get a budget 
agreement with the White House, the House, and the Senate so that we 
don't have to go into sequestration later this year, which, as the 
gentleman knows, would be a disaster for the United States military. 
Let's wish them well as they try to work out an agreement.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the motion that the Committee 
rise.
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 317, 
noes 82, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 38, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 323]

                               AYES--317

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Allred
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gottheimer
     Graves (LA)
     Green (TX)
     Grothman
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Hartzler
     Hayes
     Heck
     Hern, Kevin
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meng
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Morelle
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Zeldin

                                NOES--82

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Biggs
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Castro (TX)
     Cheney
     Cisneros
     Cleaver
     Cline
     Cloud
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Cunningham
     Davidson (OH)
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Estes
     Flores
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gohmert
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hice (GA)
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     King (NY)
     Lamborn
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCollum
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Mooney (WV)
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Porter
     Ratcliffe
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Smith (MO)
     Steube
     Stewart
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Vela
     Waters
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Wild
     Wittman
     Wright

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Gonzalez (OH)
       

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Abraham
     Axne
     Bishop (UT)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Clay
     Collins (GA)
     Curtis
     DeLauro
     DesJarlais
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Gaetz
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Grijalva
     Hastings
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hunter
     Kinzinger
     Larson (CT)
     Meeks

[[Page H4732]]


     Moulton
     Norton
     Omar
     Plaskett
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Reed
     Roby
     San Nicolas
     Schrader
     Smucker
     Waltz
     Webster (FL)
     Yoho
     Young

                              {time}  1850

  Ms. PORTER, Messrs. GALLAGHER, BYRNE, Ms. DeGETTE, Messrs. CISNEROS, 
KELLY of Mississippi, JOHNSON of Louisiana, GUEST, COLLINS of New York, 
ROUZER, BURCHETT, and AMASH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HIMES, Mses. GARCIA of Texas, WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. COLE, Ms. 
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. LONG, BLUMENAUER, and BUTTERFIELD changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Lowenthal) having assumed the chair, Mr. Horsford, 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. 2740) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________