Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 102 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)

[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)''.

[[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.

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.

____________________