[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 117 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5733-H5743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2500.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kildee). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 476 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. 2500.
  Will the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  0919


                     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. 2500) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 
for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal 
year, and for other purposes, with Ms. McCollum (Acting Chair) in the 
chair.

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on 
Thursday, July 11, 2019, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 
430 printed in part B of House Report 116-143 offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez) had been postponed.


        Amendment No. 437 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 437 
printed in part B of House Report 116-143.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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 subtitle E of title X, insert the following:

     SEC. 10__. PROHIBITION ON USE OF DOD EQUIPMENT, PERSONNEL, 
                   AND FACILITIES FOR ICE DETENTION.

       No facilities, equipment, or personnel of the Department of 
     Defense may be used to house or construct any housing for any 
     foreign nationals who are in the custody of and detained by 
     U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 476, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  My amendment, Madam Chair, would prohibit any Department of Defense 
resources from being used to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
to expand its detention capacity.
  The fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill for the Department of 
Homeland Security allows for 40,520 detention beds for ICE, which is 
the highest amount Congress has ever provided. Despite this historic 
capacity, ICE continues to exceed this detention capacity and currently 
has more than 52,000 migrants in detention--a record high. In fact, ICE 
has exceeded its detention bed capacity for multiple fiscal years in a 
row.
  To pay for this excess, ICE has, in the past, turned to Congress for 
more funding or siphoned off funds from other components in DHS. In 
2018, when ICE went beyond its detention bed limit, it took almost $200 
million from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Coast Guard, TSA, 
FEMA, and ICE criminal investigations.
  ICE continually expands beyond its means and then expects to be 
bailed out. This cannot go on.
  ICE needs to operate within its appropriated limits and make more 
strategic decisions about whom to detain. ICE should prioritize 
detaining migrants who pose a serious threat to our society as well as 
those who will not be deported unless they are detained.
  ICE cannot be given a blank check. Madam Chair, my amendment 
restricts defense resources from being used for ICE detention.
  We have already seen President Trump defy the will of Congress on 
border wall funding. When Congress refused to fund this ineffective and 
wasteful border wall, he decided to take money away from other 
departments to build his wall, and his prime funder was the Department 
of Defense.
  Madam Chair, I hope you will join me in preventing the Department of 
Defense's funding from being used as President Trump's personal piggy 
bank to circumvent the will of Congress. I urge my House colleagues to 
support

[[Page H5734]]

this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I have only myself to speak, so I 
reserve the balance of time to close.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  ICE continually overspends on detention and doesn't face any 
consequences. Not only are they holding on to more people than ever 
before, they are doing so when there are alternatives to detention that 
have proven to be reliable and effective.
  On average, it has cost $130 for ICE to detain an adult a day. One 
person in family detention costs $319 a day. Alternatives to detention 
cost less than $20 a day, and that includes services to help them 
understand our immigration system and show up for court hearings.
  I would note that Congress recently appropriated more money for ICE 
to use these alternatives to detention for migrants who do not pose a 
threat or have criminal backgrounds.
  ICE needs to operate responsibly, and that includes following a 
budget. The Trump administration cannot be allowed to turn to the 
Department of Defense every time it has a new demand.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, we had a number of these debates last night as far as 
DOD resources in supporting the ICE mission at the border.
  I might note, parenthetically, no Republican amendments on this issue 
were made in order under the rule, only Democratic amendments.
  But, on the substance of the matter, I completely agree with, I 
think, the sentiments of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) 
in that I would prefer not one dollar--or one person--from DOD have to 
be sent to the border to support the ICE mission. We ought to fully 
fund border security on its own, because we have enough issues with 
broader national security for the Pentagon and the military to deal 
with.
  Unfortunately, that is not possible when we don't fully fund ICE and 
when we have an unprecedented situation at the border. Border Patrol 
stations are at a breaking point. They have been over capacity for 
nearly all of 2019. DHS has already apprehended more than 390,000 
illegal immigrant members in 2019, which is more than triple the amount 
of the year before.
  So we have triple the number of migrants, we don't fully fund border 
security and ICE, and now this amendment says we also can't use DOD 
resources to back up.
  So what is the result? The result is either one of two things: You 
have this humanitarian crisis that appalls us all because the resources 
have not been put on the border to take care of these people and 
process them appropriately, or you just give up border security and you 
just have open borders and let anything and anybody who wants to come 
in, come in.
  Those are the alternatives if you don't provide the resources at the 
border that are needed.
  Again, my preference is DOD doesn't do any of this. DOD has its hands 
full. But if you don't fully fund ICE commensurate with the number of 
people, the situation they have got to deal with on the ground, triple 
the number of migrants, if you don't fund them to deal with that 
situation, then that is where DOD gets called in as backup and support.
  As Ranking Member Rogers mentioned last night, there are no ICE 
detainees in DOD facilities right now. I hope that there are not. 
Again, DOD has its own mission.
  But you create the problem if you don't fund ICE. If you say you 
can't use DOD or anything else, then what happens? You have a 
humanitarian crisis.
  I think that we need to do better. This Congress needs to do better 
on the whole issue of border security. That will benefit the migrants 
that we are talking about; that will benefit DOD; and that will benefit 
the country.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. 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 Mississippi 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  0930


              Amendment No. 438 Offered by Mr. Malinowski

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 438 
printed in part B of House Report 116-143.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. 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 subtitle H of title X, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. _. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT OF AIR TO GROUND MUNITIONS, 
                   RELATED COMPONENTS AND PARTS OF SUCH MUNITIONS, 
                   AND RELATED SERVICES TO SAUDI ARABIA AND THE 
                   UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.

       (a) In General.--For the one-year period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the President may not 
     issue any license, and shall suspend any license or other 
     approval that was issued before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, for the export to the Government of Saudi Arabia or 
     the Government of the United Arab Emirates of any air to 
     ground munitions, related components and parts of such 
     munitions, and related services.
       (b) Waiver.--The President may waive the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) for any instance of license denial or 
     suspension that shall result in a cost to the Federal 
     Government.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 476, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Madam Chair, let me begin by saying what this 
amendment will not do.
  It will not end our security relationship with Saudi Arabia. It will 
not prevent us from helping the Saudis defend themselves against the 
Houthis or Iran or anybody else. It won't prevent us from working with 
them to deal with maritime threats in the Persian Gulf or from sharing 
intelligence about terrorism.
  It will not, in other words, preclude us from doing anything that is 
in America's national security interest.
  All it will do is stop something that is categorically harmful to our 
national interest: the provision of offensive weapons that enable Saudi 
Arabia to keep defying our advice by bombing Yemen and prolonging the 
war there.
  There is a reason why people say that this war has caused the world's 
worst humanitarian crisis. More than 200,000 civilians have been killed 
or died of starvation.
  While the Houthis are to blame for much of this, Saudi and UAE 
airstrikes are responsible for two-thirds of Yemeni civilian 
casualties.
  There was a strike on a funeral where more than 150 civilians were 
killed, a strike on a school bus that killed 40 kids, on a Save the 
Children Hospital, on a wedding.
  These were not mistakes. These were deliberate and precise attacks. 
And everybody in Yemen knows that the bombs causing the suffering are 
made in the United States.
  Who benefits from this? Certainly not us. From a strategic 
perspective, the only winner is Iran. By making a relatively small 
investment in Yemen, the Iranians have drawn the Saudis into this 
quagmire which tarnishes them and the United States and pushes Yemenis 
into Iranian hands.
  Over two administrations, the U.S. Government has tried to use its 
influence to change how Saudi Arabia fights this war. I know about this 
effort because I was in charge of it in 2015 and 2016 at the State 
Department. It was worth a try then, but the Saudis did not listen to 
us.
  Under both the Obama and Trump administrations, we have given the 
Saudis specific lists of targets not to strike. We have told them: Do 
not hit this specific hospital or this port facility or that bridge. 
And then, repeatedly, they have gone ahead and hit the

[[Page H5735]]

precise coordinates on our no-strike list.
  And then we just keep on selling them the bombs.
  What does that say to the people of Yemen? What does it say to the 
leadership of Saudi Arabia?
  Now, I know some have argued that, if we want to protect civilians in 
Yemen, it is better to at least make sure the Saudis have precision 
munitions to help them avoid collateral damage. This argument does not 
make sense. The Saudis are using our precision weapons to precisely hit 
the wrong targets.
  Others have said that, if we don't help the Saudis, the Russians or 
the Chinese will. That is nonsense. The Saudis use American aircraft. 
Last I checked, you cannot service an F-15 with MIG parts. They are, 
for the foreseeable future, utterly dependent on us.
  The question we have to decide is: What kind of relationship are we 
going to have with Saudi Arabia? Is it one in which the Saudis can do 
whatever they please, contrary to our advice, contrary to our 
interests, knowing that, whatever they do to us, we will take it on 
ourselves to save the relationship? Or will we finally recognize that, 
while we benefit from working with Saudi Arabia, the Saudis need us far 
more?
  This is a measured amendment, Madam Chair, that deals with precisely 
the Saudi conduct that we most oppose, without undermining our ability 
to cooperate with Saudi Arabia on other issues. I urge my colleagues to 
support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from 
New Jersey's amendment, which would ban sales of all air-to-ground 
munitions to Saudi Arabia and UAE for a period of 1 year.
  The gentleman and I have worked together on many human rights issues, 
including on legislation that would hold Saudi Arabia accountable for 
the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, and I share the gentleman's concern for 
the Saudi-led coalition's record on human rights.
  But, while I understand the gentleman's amendment is intended to 
address concerns about the Yemen conflict, which I share, this 
amendment is not the correct approach to do so.
  Rather than provide clear conditions and benchmarks regarding our 
strategic partners' wartime conduct, the effect of this amendment would 
simply slam the door.
  Disengaging will not help us end the war in Yemen, nor will it help 
us contain Iran's malign influence.
  Iran is backing Houthi rebels in Yemen, who toppled the 
internationally recognized government in Yemen and began a bloody civil 
war that has roiled the region since 2015.
  Iran has helped the Houthis target civilian infrastructure in Saudi 
Arabia, and on June 6, Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen shot down a 
U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone using an Iranian--an Iranian--surface-to-air 
missile.
  U.S. Central Command said the attack was ``enabled by Iranian 
assistance.''
  Iran's increasingly reckless and aggressive behavior is deeply 
concerning. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are on the front lines of the 
struggle to contain Iran.
  As partners like Saudi Arabia continue to endure Houthi attacks on 
civilian targets, we need a tailored approach that helps our partners 
protect their national security while minimizing casualties.
  This amendment is not tailored, and it will not make the Arabian 
peninsula safer.
  Madam Chair, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for 
offering this amendment.
  I do agree with the opponent on this issue, that we have tried to 
hold Saudi Arabia accountable. As the gentleman mentioned, we have 
countlessly showed them how to better target.
  We have tried various things legislatively. We have introduced 
legislation. We have done a bunch of different things to try to say we 
don't like what Saudi Arabia is doing.
  But we have never actually done any of it, because the Trump 
administration has decided--and, as the gentleman points out, it wasn't 
just the Trump administration--that we are basically all in on Saudi 
Arabia. We are simply going to support them no matter what.
  The murder of Jamal Khashoggi was appalling, and the fact that Saudi 
Arabia felt that they could do it and get away with it is the most 
alarming thing. Well, it is not the most alarming thing. The thing that 
is more alarming is they were right.
  They figured that this administration would do nothing, just like as 
they bombed the schoolbus, as they bombed the funeral, as they bombed 
all of those civilian targets. As many times as we told them that we 
didn't want them to do that, they knew there would be no consequences, 
that, at the end of the day, the U.S. was not going to hold them 
accountable for that.
  And the consequences are grave. As the gentleman points out, it 
actually empowers Iran because it sends a message to the world that we 
are willing to bomb and kill civilians and participate, however good 
intentioned, in what has become the largest humanitarian crisis in the 
world.
  And it drives people into terrorists' arms because, yes, Iran is a 
problem, but ISIS and al-Qaida, I would submit to you, are a larger 
problem.
  And they use this. They use our blind support for Saudi Arabia and 
for this war in Yemen against us.
  Madam Chair, this is a good amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Chair, the last few months has seen Iran 
perpetrate a series of provocative actions against the U.S. and its 
regional partners:
  On May 15, armed drones struck two Saudi oilfields, resulting in the 
ordered departure of nonessential personnel from U.S. Embassy Baghdad 
and the General Consulate Erbil;
  On May 16, the head of the Quds Force called on the terror groups to 
prepare for a proxy war;
  Armed drones launched by the Houthis have repeatedly attacked a 
civilian airport in Saudi Arabia;
  On June 19, Iran shot down U.S. military assets over international 
waters;
  And, just yesterday, the British Navy prevented three Iranian 
parliamentary vessels from impeding the passage of a British oil tanker 
transiting the Strait of Hormuz.
  This is not the time to walk away from our strategic allies. We share 
a common threat. We must be certain that they are equipped with the 
tools they need to defend their national security and to work with us 
in countering common threats that destabilize this region.
  I firmly believe the United States can support our strategic allies 
while also insisting that they prosecute the war in Yemen more 
responsibly.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose 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 New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. WAGNER. 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 New Jersey 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 440 Offered by Mrs. Dingell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 440 
printed in part B of House Report 116-143.
  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:

       At the end of subtitle B of title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3__. DESIGNATION AS HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall designate all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as 
     hazardous substances under section 102(a) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9602(a)).


[[Page H5736]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 476, 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, I would like to first thank Chairman Smith and the House 
Armed Services Committee for all their good work crafting the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020.
  This is a strong bill. It includes many top priorities that will care 
for our servicemembers and keep the United States well defended, 
including serious provisions to address PFAS chemical contamination, 
which is a serious threat at too many of our military bases. PFAS 
chemicals are manmade and harmful to human health and our environment.
  Developed in the 1940s, PFAS can be found across multiple industries 
and all around us in many of our communities. PFAS contamination is 
widespread. It is in red States; it is in blue States, in small water 
systems, in large ones, on military sites, and in residential 
communities.
  Recently, experts with the Environmental Working Group have 
identified 712 sites in 49 States that have some level of PFAS 
contamination, and most are not being cleaned up. These sites are 
associated with drinking water systems serving about 19 million people, 
and the number of sites is expected to grow across the country because 
States are just beginning to test for these chemicals.
  The Environmental Working Group has also identified 219 military-
specific sites that have PFAS contamination because--and, at the time, 
it is what existed--PFAS firefighting foams were used. Yet, in many 
States--my home State of Michigan included--cleanup of these sites is 
not happening.
  Unfortunately, the military is part of that problem. They are arguing 
that, in these communities, they don't have to clean up the PFAS 
contamination because the Superfund law does not require them to do so.
  In May of 2018, the then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proudly 
announced that EPA would propose designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous 
substances under the Superfund law. Under EPA Administrator Wheeler's 
leadership, EPA hasn't even issued a proposed rulemaking, let alone 
finalized an action. At this rate, it will be at least another year--at 
least--and probably longer before this vital step is taken.
  Americans deserve better. Congress needs to act, and this amendment 
would be a meaningful step forward.
  It is clear. PFAS chemicals are hazardous, and it is time these 
chemicals are properly designated as hazardous substances.
  Our amendment would simply require the EPA to list PFAS chemicals--
including PFOA, PFOS, GenX, and many other harmful chemicals--as 
hazardous substances under the EPA's Superfund cleanup program within 1 
year.

                              {time}  0945

  Designating this will jump-start the cleanup process at military 
facilities, which is needed, and in communities across this country; 
and that is why it is imperative that this amendment be included.
  I am proud to have offered this amendment, and I thank all who have 
supported this approach and make this possible for us to consider 
today.
  Today, we have a real opportunity to help accelerate the cleanup 
process wherever PFAS contamination exists and protect the health of 
all Americans, and our servicemen and women, and the environment, now 
and for future generations. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee), who I have been proud to work with on this.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for her leadership on 
this issue, and for yielding.
  This amendment is really simple. It requires polluters who have 
contaminated drinking water with PFAS chemicals to clean it up. The 
amendment has the support of the Armed Services Committee and the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, and I thank the chairs of those 
committees for their help.
  It also has the support of the International Association of 
Firefighters and the National Farmers Union because they know how 
important it is to clean up PFAS.
  Communities like the community of Oscoda, in the northern part of my 
district, have waited too long for the Defense Department to act. This 
is a step toward getting these dangerous chemicals out of the ground 
and out of our groundwater.
  I do understand that some groups are concerned about this amendment, 
utilities and airports. We pledge to work with them as this legislation 
moves through conference to make sure that we deal with the concerns 
that they raise.
  But this is simple. This says that we are going to protect public 
health. Every day that we fail to act, the cost of PFAS cleanup just 
gets more expensive.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment and to 
support the underlying bill.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, this amendment is anything but simple. It 
is highly complex. Per- and polyfluorinated compounds, there are 
probably 5,000 different permutations, and my colleagues act like it is 
one formulation; and it is multiple.
  So what they want to do is, in essence, do a de facto ban by claiming 
a class of 5,000 chemicals as qualified for toxic and in the Superfund; 
and that is a de facto ban of all these applications.
  We are all going to fly home tonight. We are going to close the door 
to the plane. We are going to have this seal, and this seal is what is 
used to protect--the seal around the airplane door--us, so we don't get 
sucked out. Banned, toxic Superfund.
  No one disputes our colleagues' concerns and maybe my concern about 
former installations, current installations, and water in ditches from 
firefighting foam. So let's deal with that issue.
  Let's not do what this amendment and other amendments will do which 
is throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
  So what do we use some of these formulations of per-and 
polyfluorinated compounds--again, some 5,000--for? We use it to save 
the lives of people.
  Here is a stent, which are in millions of people. PFAS banned, de 
facto banned, because it falls under a Superfund. No one is going to 
make them because they don't want to be held legally liable if this 
stent eventually goes into a landfill. So we don't need that anymore.
  More kids than I know are born with a hole in their heart. So what is 
the chemical compound that helps plug the hole, so these children can 
grow and mature? Oh, it is a PFAS-formulated compound. So let's have a 
de facto ban on this device.
  Remember, these medical devices are approved by our Food and Drug 
Administration. They say they are safe to be inserted into the human 
body. So why would we then say, if it is safe to be inserted into the 
human body, these medical devices are now going to be unsafe in a 
landfill, and then you have a Superfund act and, again, a de facto ban?
  This shouldn't be in this debate. I have great respect for the 
chairman and the ranking member, but this is a National Defense 
Authorization Act. It is not an Energy and Commerce Environment and 
Climate Change Subcommittee act; and I hope we will take that up.
  EPA deals with toxicologists, analytical chemists, organic chemists, 
epidemiologists, chemical biologists, material scientists, theoretical 
chemists. Those are the ones who are going to help us decide which of 
the 5,000 permutations of PFAS are actually good and which ones are 
actually harmful.
  But this says they are all bad. It is like--my folks don't want me to 
use this example. It is like saying, an orange is bad. Let's ban all 
fruit.
  Okay. No, we are going to take the peeling of a banana and throw it 
in a dump. Oh, no, that is going to be a toxic dump under Superfund, 
and no

[[Page H5737]]

one is going to have and harvest bananas anymore. That is just 
ridiculous.
  It is moved by emotion. We understand that. It is moved by real 
problems and groundwater contamination. We are not against that.
  My plea is, let's use the committee process, and help you and help me 
and these other communities affect change and provide safe drinking 
water to our communities.
  We have got the water communities who are afraid of this amendment. 
They are afraid of this amendment because of previous practices, and 
then them falling under Superfund liability, and then having to raise 
rates based upon providing sludge to farmers who put it on their 
ground, and then they get held up in this Superfund trap.
  So I have all the waterway councils, all the water works, the 
municipal utilities that are saying, this is not the way to go to ban a 
whole class, and this is going to put us on the hook, and it is going 
to raise water rates.
  I also have a list of 20 or so manufacturing sectors. They said, 
let's clean up the water. Let's not ban a whole class.

                                                    July 11, 2019.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We, 
     the undersigned associations, believe that Congress should 
     act to address contamination associated with per- and 
     polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in a manner that 
     prioritizes cleanups over bureaucracy. For this reason, we 
     oppose Amendment 440 offered by Reps. Kildee and Dingell, and 
     Amendment 48, offered by Rep. Pappas, to H.R. 2500, the 
     ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020.''
       PFAS are a large and diverse class of chemicals with unique 
     properties that have been used in a broad number of 
     beneficial applications for decades. Heightened attention to 
     potential health effects of certain PFAS chemicals has 
     understandably led to increased public concern and interest 
     in new regulatory protections in this area.
       We support action to address these concerns, and are 
     committed to proactively working with Congress, regulators, 
     and other stakeholders to establish risk-based standards for 
     PFAS that protect human health and the environment.
       We applaud the leadership of Reps. Kildee, Dingell, and 
     Pappas for pushing Congress to address PFAS contamination. 
     Amendments 440 and 48, however well-intentioned, are 
     unproductive approaches to expeditiously address PFAS 
     contamination.
       Amendment 440 would require the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) to designate all PFAS as hazardous substances 
     under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund, within one year. 
     Similarly, Amendment 48 would require EPA to add all PFAS to 
     the list of toxic pollutants regulated by the Clean Water Act 
     and establish effluent and pretreatment standards, which 
     could trigger ``back door'' CERCLA designations.
       CERCLA listing decisions are not political questions that 
     Congress is best positioned to address. EPA should retain its 
     traditional authority to study potentially hazardous 
     substances and to ascertain whether they should be designated 
     under CERCLA. The Superfund program has a strong track 
     record, and EPA's career scientists have the requisite 
     expertise to examine PFAS.
       Moreover, Amendments 440 and 48 would likely lead to slower 
     cleanups because of an overwhelmed EPA and the potentially 
     needless reopening of vast amounts of remediated sites. Such 
     an approach could also undermine the nascent progress towards 
     clean up at some of the prevalent, known contaminated sites.
       We are disappointed that an amendment proposed by Rep. 
     Fitzpatrick, with Reps. Boyle, Upton, McKinley, Rouda, and 
     Blunt Rochester, will not come up for a vote in the House. 
     The approach of this bipartisan amendment, which mirrors 
     provisions of the defense authorization bill passed by the 
     full Senate, would have encouraged the development of a 
     consistent approach and clear timelines for assessing and 
     regulating specific PFAS across all relevant federal agencies 
     to ensure that government regulations, actions, and 
     communications are consistent and coordinated for maximum 
     effectiveness.
       Congress's goal should be to create conditions for cleanups 
     to occur as expeditiously as practicable. While we oppose 
     Amendments 440 and 48, we applaud the work of the amendments' 
     sponsors and the other leaders of PFAS issues in both parties 
     for their important contributions. We look forward to working 
     with you on this important matter as the legislative process 
     continues.
           Sincerely,
         Airlines for America; Airports Council International--
           North America; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; 
           American Chemistry Council; American Forest & Paper 
           Association; Council of Industrial Boiler Owners; 
           Flexible Packaging Association; International Liquid 
           Terminals Association; National Association of Chemical 
           Distributors; Plastics Industry Association; Petroleum 
           Marketers Association of America; Society of Chemical 
           Manufacturers and Affiliates; TRSA, the Linen, Uniform, 
           and Facility Services Association; U.S. Chamber of 
           Commerce.

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 441 Offered by Ms. Jayapal

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 441 
printed in part B of House Report 116-143.
  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 subtitle H of title X, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 10__. INDEPENDENT STUDIES REGARDING POTENTIAL COST 
                   SAVINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE NUCLEAR SECURITY 
                   ENTERPRISE AND FORCE STRUCTURE.

       (a) Comptroller General Report.--
       (1) Requirement.--Not later than December 1, 2020, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report containing cost 
     analyses with respect to each of the following:
       (A) Options for reducing the nuclear security enterprise 
     (as defined by section 4002 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act 
     (50 U.S.C. 2501)).
       (B) Options for reductions in service contracts.
       (C) Options for rebalancing force structure, including 
     reductions in special operations forces, the ancillary 
     effects of such options, and the impacts of changing the 
     force mix between active and reserve components.
       (D) Options for reducing or realigning overseas military 
     presence.
       (E) Options for the use of pre-award audits to negotiate 
     better prices for weapon systems and services.
       (F) Options for replacing some military personnel with 
     civilian employees.
       (2) Form.--The report under paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified 
     annex with respect to the matters specified in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (C) of such paragraph.
       (b) FFRDC Studies.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall seek to 
     enter into agreements with federally funded research and 
     development centers to conduct the following studies:
       (A) A study of the cost savings resulting from changes in 
     force structure, active and reserve component balance, 
     basing, and other impacts resulting from potential challenges 
     to foundational planning assumptions.
       (B) A study of the cost savings resulting from the adoption 
     of alternatives to the current nuclear deterrence posture of 
     the United States.
       (C) A study of the cost savings of alternatives to current 
     force structures.
       (2) Detail required.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
     study under paragraph (1) has a level of detail sufficient to 
     allow the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to 
     analyze the costs described in such studies.
       (3) Submission.--Not later than December 1, 2020, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees each study under paragraph (1).
       (4) Form.--The studies under paragraph (1), and the report 
     under paragraph (3), shall be submitted in unclassified form, 
     but may contain a classified annex.
       (c) Independent Study.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall seek to enter into an 
     agreement with an appropriate nonpartisan nongovernmental 
     entity to conduct a study on possible alternatives to the 
     current defense and deterrence posture of the United States, 
     including challenges to foundational assumptions, and the 
     impact of such postures on planning assumptions and 
     requirements, basing, and force structure requirements.
       (2) Submission.--Not later than December 1, 2020, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees the study under paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 476, 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, let me start by thanking the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith, my colleague, for his hard 
work and leadership on this bill.
  My amendment requires a series of independent studies to evaluate 
potential cost savings with respect to our country's nuclear security 
enterprise and force structure.
  This amendment is a measured approach to ensuring that our military 
spending meets our national security needs while making the best use of 
every taxpayer dollar. It would require the Government Accountability 
Office

[[Page H5738]]

to examine options for reducing service contracts, reducing the nuclear 
security enterprise, rebalancing force structure, and reducing or 
realigning our overseas presence.
  It would also examine realistic, cost-effective ways to use pre-award 
audits to negotiate better prices for weapons systems and services.
  Additionally, it would require an updated and comprehensive series of 
studies from Federally-funded research and development centers as well 
as a nonpartisan, nongovernmental think tank. These would supplement 
the GAO studies and look at cost savings resulting from alternatives to 
current force structures and our nuclear posture.
  Now, I know the other side is going to say that we have done these 
studies; there is plenty of information out there. But the reality is 
we operate in a different world, and we need an updated, comprehensive 
study that deals with our current situation in the world.
  Madam Chair, let me be clear that while I do have strong reservations 
about the top-line spending level in this bill, my amendment would not 
cut from the top line at all. Instead, it looks at ways that we can 
make better policy choices; we can better allocate a limited set of 
resources down the line.
  So, in the long term, I believe our defense spending levels are 
unsustainable, inefficient, and unnecessary. But we have to figure out 
how to cut that logically, comprehensively, with our national security 
in the center of that analysis.
  So my amendment is a thoughtful solution to give us some of the data 
we need. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Chair, the NDAA has been a bipartisan bill for 
the last 58 consecutive years. In those decades, control of Congress 
changed hands many times, with Democrats in the majority and 
Republicans in the majority. Both parties maintained a consistent 
motto: The troops come first. The troops come before politics. We are 
making history this week because that all changed.
  But not in the Senate, where the National Defense Authorization Act, 
the NDAA passed with bipartisan support, not just Republicans, but 
Chuck Schumer voted for it as well; 86 Senators.
  But it is not being continued in the House, not under this majority. 
The NDAA was a test for this new majority. It was a test of whether 
they could put their radicalism aside and work across the aisle to do 
what was right for the country. The Democrats, or should I say, many 
call themselves socialist Democrats, failed that test.
  After weeks of infighting they brought yet another partisan bill to 
the floor. So this year's NDAA, at least the House version, will not 
and cannot be bipartisan.
  Now, let me give you a couple of reasons why:
  First, the bill is filled with poison pills and rife with flaws. Here 
are some of the most harmful ones.
  It makes it tougher to recruit and retain effective soldiers and 
negatively impacts military families. This bill cuts an astonishing 
$1.2 billion from the military personnel accounts.
  Terrorist attacks still threaten us and threaten the homeland, but 
Democrats would close GTMO and, against all common sense, bring some of 
the world's worst and most dangerous terrorists to the United States, 
instead of keeping them where they belong.
  Madam Chairwoman, it is going to be quite interesting history when 
you cast this vote, and when these terrorists come to the homeland, how 
you answer to your constituents that you cast that vote to make that 
happen.
  The humanitarian crisis on the southern border continues; so does the 
Democrats refusal to address it. They are working to stop construction 
on the border and, worse, placing severe restrictions on the military's 
traditional mission to support border security.
  Democrats have spent the last 2 years accusing President Trump of 
being a Russian agent and telling us how big a threat Putin is. But 
what does the NDAA do? It actually empowers Russia and China, gives 
them an advantage.
  Even when we worked with our NATO allies on what we would deal with 
when it came to nuclear weapons, they deny it inside this bill.
  When it comes to hypersonics, you cut it. When it comes to the future 
of this country, you just put us in a weaker position.

                              {time}  1000

  Any way you look at it, this bill will not make America safer.
  But the problems here go beyond bad policy ideas. The Democrats' 
partisan process is egregious. Let's just look at the facts.
  This year, 439 amendments, a record, were made in order. You would 
think that would reflect bipartisan amendments. Why do you think it 
would reflect bipartisan? Because let's look at the last 2 years, and I 
can look at that because the gentleman on our side of the aisle who was 
chair at that time ran two NDAA bills. At the end of the day, the vote 
tally was way into the 300s, almost 400.
  But how do you build something in bipartisanship? First, you start in 
committee. Then when it comes to the floor with all the other Members, 
you allow their amendments to come.
  And those 2 years of those NDAA bills with Republicans in the 
majority, do you know who had the majority of the amendments on this 
floor? The minority party. The minority party had the most amendments 
on this floor.
  So of those 439, how was the minority party's voice heard in this new 
NDAA that now has become partisan? Fourteen percent. That is right. 
Fourteen percent of the amendments on this floor were allocated to the 
minority party, when history proves that we have done something 
different when somebody else was in charge.
  But the most egregious of all of this was how they treated the rules 
that we fought for inside this House, that we had this body open. We 
are a country of the rule of law. We believe this House should work the 
same way.
  So when I listened to the new Speaker talk about the changes in this 
body, one was a Consensus Calendar, that anybody who is elected to 
Congress, if they did their work, if they worked hard, if they were 
able to achieve more than 290 cosponsors on a bill, you should have a 
voice on this floor. I heard Members on both sides of the aisle say 
they could not vote for a Speaker unless somebody would agree to this. 
It was agreed to, and it was changed.
  So when the moment came when a Member had done the work, when it met 
that threshold--and we know that threshold is hard to meet. That 
Member's name was Congressman   Joe Wilson.
  What did   Joe Wilson put his effort, his sweat, and his tears in? 
What could he actually achieve by working on both sides of the aisle? 
It was the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act. It would make it 
easier for spouses of servicemembers who died to receive military 
benefits. He did everything that the new rule said you had to do.
  And what did this new majority do after they quashed any ability for 
amendments on the other side? They changed the rule that they just 
created.
  My father would look at me. He would question my character if I gave 
somebody my word and I broke it. Not only did we give somebody our 
word, we actually changed the rules in this House.
    Joe Wilson has 365 sponsors--not just supporters, but cosponsors. 
That is nearly this entire House. It qualified for the Consensus 
Calendar that Speaker Pelosi promised to create so the floor would be 
open to the best, and most of us agreed with that idea. It turns out 
that was just another broken promise by the majority.
  I wonder if anyone on the other side will bring it up. I wonder if it 
will bother them that, in the moment that you told this body what the 
rules would be, and somebody achieved it for the military spouses, that 
you had actually changed the rule so it cannot be voted on.
  I have seen a lot of things happen on this floor; I have seen a lot 
of things that embarrass me; but this is probably

[[Page H5739]]

one of the most shameful things I have ever seen a majority do.
  The Democrat Socialists stripped the language from   Joe Wilson's 
bill, discarded his legislation, and stuck the language into their own 
partisan NDAA that our Conference won't support. They put it into a 
bill that   Joe Wilson can't even support after he did all the work, 
after they made promises not only to the Members of Congress, but 
remember what promise you made to the American public.
  Our national security is not a game, but that is exactly how 
Democrats are treating it.
  Madam Chair, this majority has reached new lows this week. They seem 
determined to prove to the American people week in and week out that 
they are incapable of governing responsibly.
  They can walk out these doors; they can look down the hall; and they 
can see the Chamber on the other side taking up a similar bill that 
reaches 86 percent of the Senate voting ``yes,'' with the leaders on 
the Republican and Democrat side agreeing to it, with the majority in 
the Senate not changing the rules that they laid out for the American 
public to see.
  The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2020 will determine whether our military 
maintains its gains in readiness or languishes after years of progress.
  The stakes of this year's defense budget are too high to be left to 
the wild fantasies to the left. It is time for them to stop the 
partisan games and send a message to the world that America is serious 
about protecting its interests, supporting our allies, and shaping the 
future of the international order for generations to come.
  Madam Chair, I know what will happen on this floor today. History 
will be written about it. Fifty-eight years that this body has put 
troops first, this is not the history I want for this House. They will 
write about what happens today, but it won't be in a positive notion. 
What gets voted on today will not become law.
  Madam Chair, I don't get into conference fights and debates. You can 
have differences within, but why make the troops suffer? How difficult 
is it to put the troops first?
  There are moments for politics, and this is not one. This is not a 
moment to be proud. This is probably one of the lowest moments I have 
watched a majority use.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, meanwhile, back to a world that 
actually exists.
  Talking about Ms. Jayapal's amendment, I think it is incredibly 
important because there is a problem going forward from the military 
that we have seen on many issues. You take it piece by piece--you look 
at the nuclear enterprise; you look at the Air Force; you look at how 
many ships we want; you look at counterterrorism--and you add up all 
the money over the course of the next 20 to 25 years, and we don't get 
there.
  And this is the worst thing that we can do to our troops is to set up 
a group of missions that we don't have the funds to prepare them for. 
That is the largest problem that I see. We here in Congress decide that 
they ought to be able to do more than they can do, and we don't have 
the money to provide for it.
  That is why it is so important that we don't do what the minority 
leader just suggested we do, which is basically shut down as a body and 
say whatever the Pentagon wants, we just give it to them and hope that 
they figure it out.
  We have a role to play in that process, to make sure that the money 
is spent well because--I know this is news to the other side--the 
Pentagon hasn't always been right. They haven't always spent their 
money well. And that is the understatement of the morning.
  So we need to know: Where are they spending the money? How can we 
better understand that?
  Where the nuclear enterprise is concerned, we are set to spend a lot 
of money. I know it is only 6 percent of the defense budget, but 6 
percent of the defense budget is a lot of money. We need to better 
understand it.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to 
close on this amendment.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, I just want to say that this amendment is a 
smart, thoughtful way to think about how we reduce military spending 
over the long term without sacrificing national security.
  And, Madam Chair, I don't understand when patriotism got linked to 
how much money we give to defense contractors. That is not my idea of 
patriotism.
  Patriotism, to me, and protecting the troops means that we make sure 
that we do not send them into harm's way unless absolutely necessary, 
which means that we look at the threats of the future, we assess our 
response to that, and we take care of our troops. This bill does that 
in many, many, many, many ways.
  I have squabbles, as you know, with the top-line spending number 
because I don't believe that being patriotic means we just continue to 
raise the amount of money that we give. I think we need to be 
thoughtful and comprehensive about what our national security looks 
like internationally.
  And, Madam Chair, I also think that national security should mean how 
we treat people here in this country. If we send troops overseas and 
yet we cut their healthcare, we take away preexisting conditions for 
their family members, we refuse to provide public education, that is 
not helping our troops while they are overseas to worry about their 
families.
  So national security is a big picture conversation. It is not about 
how much money we give to defense contractors.
  This amendment is thoughtful. It says what we know about the future.
  If a private corporation lost track of hundreds of millions of 
dollars, its shareholders would find that completely unacceptable. The 
reality is that we need to make sure we are thoughtful, and we should 
pass this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, there is a train of thought, a political philosophy in 
the United States, at least since the sixties, that we are the problem, 
that the world would be a better place if we reduced our military, if 
we were weaker, if we did less; we are the problem.
  In one political convention, Jeane Kirkpatrick called it the ``blame 
America first'' approach, and I think we are seeing elements of that 
philosophy in this amendment, because this amendment requires a bunch 
of studies about how we cut stuff.
  Now, it doesn't really talk about, okay, what are our adversaries 
doing. It doesn't really talk about the challenges in meeting the 
security needs of our neighborhoods, how we prevent terrorists from 
coming to America and blowing us up, how we prevent the Russians, the 
Chinese from doing a variety of things, the Iranians, North Korean 
missiles. No, it just talks about, okay, what can we do to cut us.
  And, specifically, section (a)(1)A asks for studies on options for 
reducing the Nuclear Security Enterprise; B, options for reducing 
service contracts; C, options for reducing special operations forces; 
D, options for reducing overseas military presence; F, options for 
replacing military personnel with civilian personnel. It is all about 
cuts.
  I understand that there is that approach, but that approach has not 
been what has guided the broad majority of American political 
leadership for the last 70 years, because that approach has been that 
America needs to be strong. We are not perfect. Absolutely, the 
Pentagon is not as efficient as it should be, no question. But the idea 
is we should be strong and we have to pay attention to what adversaries 
are doing. That is not the approach that this amendment takes.
  One other point, I think that Chairman Smith made a very important 
point a while ago, and that is one of the worst things we can do is 
send men and women out on missions without providing the support, the 
training, all that they need to, the best equipment, all that they need 
to perform that mission successfully.

                              {time}  1015

  We owe them that when they risk their lives. Yet, that is exactly 
what

[[Page H5740]]

this government, and I think there is blame on both sides, has done in 
the past.
  The world did not get safer. We did not reduce the missions we asked 
them to do. Yet, the budget was cut by 20 percent. And what happened? 
More of them lost their lives. There are real consequences to cuts 
without taking into account a strategy and including what adversaries 
are doing.
  The administration has, for the first time in a long time, a 
significant National Security Strategy. It is not perfect, but at least 
it is an approach to dealing with these things: Here is the strategy. 
Here are the resources we need to meet that strategy.
  That is what they have given us. You can agree or disagree, but they 
have done that.
  That is not what this amendment does. This amendment says cut. This 
amendment says, have America grow weaker and, somehow, the world will 
benefit. I don't think that is true.
  Madam Chair, I am opposed to this amendment. 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 ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. 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.


      Amendments En Bloc No. 17 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 
476, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 17 consisting of amendment Nos. 432, 433, 434, 
435, 436, and 439, printed in part B of House Report 116-143, offered 
by Mr. Smith of Washington:

           Amendment No. 432 Offered by Miss Rice of New York

       At the end of subtitle G of title X, insert the following:

     SEC. 10__. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE SUPPORT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY OPERATIONS ON THE SOUTHWEST BORDER OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Review Required.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a review of ongoing and planned future 
     Department of Defense support for Department of Homeland 
     Security operations to secure the southwest border of the 
     United States.
       (b) Report and Briefing.--
       (1) Briefing.--Not later than 180 days after beginning to 
     conduct the review required under subsection (a), the 
     Comptroller General shall provide to the Committees on Armed 
     Services and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate and the Committees on Armed Services and Homeland 
     Security of the House of Representatives a briefing on the 
     review.
       (2) Report.--Subsequent to providing the briefing under 
     paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the 
     Committees on Armed Services and Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committees on 
     Armed Services and Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the review.


          Amendment No. 433 Offered by Mr. Stanton of Arizona

       At the end of subtitle G of title V, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 567. INCLUSION OF QUESTION REGARDING IMMIGRATION STATUS 
                   ON PRESEPARATION COUNSELING CHECKLIST (DD FORM 
                   2648).

       Not later than September 30, 2020, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall modify the preseparation counseling checklist for 
     active component, active guard reserve, active reserve, full 
     time support, and reserve program administrator service 
     members (DD Form 2648) to include a specific block wherein a 
     member of the Armed Forces may indicate that the member would 
     like to receive information regarding the immigration status 
     of that member and expedited naturalization.


         Amendment No. 434 Offered by Mr. Takano of California

       At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 530. NOTIFICATION TO SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY OF 
                   HONORABLE DISCHARGES OF NON-CITIZENS.

       (a) Notice Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with a copy of the 
     Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 
     214) for each individual who is not a citizen of the United 
     States who is honorably discharged from the Armed Forces so 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security may note such discharge in 
     an I-213 Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien for that 
     individual.
       (b) Deadline.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide each 
     notice under this section not later than 30 days after the 
     date of such discharge.


         Amendment No. 435 Offered by Mr. Aguilar of California

       At the end of subtitle G of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 567. COUNSELING TO MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary concerned shall furnish to 
     covered individuals under the jurisdiction of that Secretary 
     counseling regarding how to apply for naturalization.
       (b) Covered Individual Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``covered individual'' means a member of the Armed Forces who 
     is not a citizen of the United States.


         Amendment No. 436 Offered by Mr. Aguilar of California

       At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 530. PROHIBITION ON INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION OR 
                   DEPORTATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO 
                   ARE DACA RECIPIENTS OR HAVE TEMPORARY PROTECTED 
                   STATUS.

       (a) DACA.--No covered person who has received deferred 
     action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 
     program of the Department of Homeland Security, established 
     pursuant to the memorandum of the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security dated June 15, 2012, may, solely on the basis of 
     such deferred action, be--
       (1) involuntarily separated from the Armed Forces;
       (2) placed into removal proceedings; or
       (3) removed from the United States.
       (b) TPS.--No covered person who has temporary protected 
     status under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a), may, solely on the basis of such 
     status, be--
       (1) involuntarily separated from the Armed Forces;
       (2) placed into removal proceedings; or
       (3) removed from the United States.
       (c) Covered Person Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``covered person'' means--
       (1) a member of the Armed Forces; or
       (2) an individual who was discharged from the Armed Forces 
     under honorable conditions.


          Amendment No. 439 Offered by Mr. Pocan of Wisconsin

       At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 530. REVIEW OF DISCHARGE CHARACTERIZATION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may cited as the ``Restore 
     Honor to Service Members Act''.
       (b) In General.--In accordance with this section, and in a 
     manner that is consistent across the entire Department of 
     Defense, the appropriate discharge boards shall review the 
     discharge characterization of covered members at the request 
     of a covered member, and shall change the discharge 
     characterization of a covered member to honorable if such 
     change is determined to be appropriate after a review is 
     conducted.
       (c) Appeal.--A covered member, or the representative of the 
     member, may appeal a decision by the appropriate discharge 
     board to not change the discharge characterization by using 
     the regular appeals process of the board.
       (d) Change of Records.--For each covered member whose 
     discharge characterization is changed under subsection (a), 
     or for each covered member who was honorably discharged but 
     whose DD-214 form reflects the sexual orientation of the 
     member, the Secretary of Defense shall reissue to the member 
     or their representative a revised DD-214 form that does not 
     reflect the sexual orientation of the member or reason for 
     initial discharge.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``appropriate discharge board'' means the 
     boards for correction of military records under section 1552 
     of title 10, United States Code, or the discharge review 
     boards under section 1553 of such title, as the case may be.
       (2) The term ``covered member'' means any former member of 
     the Armed Forces who was discharged from the Armed Forces 
     because of the sexual orientation of the member.
       (3) The term ``discharge characterization'' means the 
     characterization under which a member of the Armed forces is 
     discharged or released, including ``dishonorable'', 
     ``general'', ``other than honorable'', and ``honorable''.
       (4) The term ``representative'' means the surviving spouse, 
     next of kin, or legal representative of a covered member.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 476, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to 
expand and improve the defense access

[[Page H5741]]

roads program. This critical program allows the Defense Department to 
construct, replace, and maintain roads that lead to military 
installations.
  My amendment will improve the program by allowing DOD to construct 
and maintain flood management infrastructure, such as culverts and 
storm drains, and to fortify the roads that are projected to be 
impacted by sea level rise.
  This authority is critical to bases in the Lowcountry, such as Parris 
Island, which is increasingly vulnerable to projected flooding.
  Additionally, this measure will expand the program to include roads 
to airports or seaports that are deemed necessary for our national 
security.
  Given Charleston's indispensable role in supporting the rapid 
deployment of our servicemembers and their equipment, it is essential 
that our local infrastructure is maintained and reinforced.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I would inform the Chair that I have 
only myself to speak on this amendment. I don't know if the chairman 
has other speakers.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, it is just me. I am going to 
close, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, let me start in a similar way that I started 2 days ago, 
and that is to express my appreciation to the staff, which has done a 
terrific job of wading through a ton of issues, a lot of paper, in 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  I also want to express my particular appreciation to some unsung 
heroes, and those are the folks in the legislative counsel. Members and 
staff come up with these great ideas. Well, it takes the professionals 
to actually get that down on paper in legislative language in a timely 
way so that we can deal with it here on the floor or in committee or 
subcommittee, wherever it is. They do a magnificent job, and I don't 
think they get enough attention for the work that they do.
  In addition, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Smith and 
to all the members of the Armed Services Committee for their 
commitment, for not just the work they put into it, but for their 
dedication and commitment to the country's national security.
  There have been some inferences, and even more than inferences, on 
the floor that there is some sort of political maneuvering or games 
going on. I have not seen that in the Armed Services Committee. I 
believe, to a man and woman, every member of that committee is 
sincerely dedicated to doing the right thing for the troops and for the 
country's national security.
  The truth is, together, we have done a lot of good work over the 
years, 58 straight years. In recent years, we have together grappled 
with the problem that we were discussing a few moments ago, a readiness 
crisis that resulted in the highest number of aviation deaths in 6 
years last year and an increasing number of accidents.
  Together, we grappled to turn the corner and do a better job. There 
is a lot of pride in what the committee together has done over the 
years.
  There is concern, at least among the Members on my side of the aisle, 
that a lot of that progress we have made together stands a chance of 
slipping backward with this bill.
  We have spent 3 days going through hundreds of amendments. A lot of 
times, we don't talk about the core of the bill. Let me give some 
examples of the concerns that I have about the reductions in 
authorization in the underlying bill that make a real difference.
  For example, the underlying bill cut $295 million from aircraft 
carrier procurement, leading to a 1-year delay in the construction of 
the next carrier. We need 12 carriers. We have 11. We are on a path to 
nine. As a result of this bill, we are going to delay by another year 
getting another carrier.
  It cuts $155 million from fast inshore attack craft mine 
countermeasures. Within the last 2 days, we have had some of these 
small boats in the Persian Gulf threaten British tankers, yet this bill 
cuts $155 million from the sort of thing that deals with that.
  A lot of us are concerned about what the Russians and the Chinese are 
doing in hypersonics. A number of people think they are ahead of us in 
a number of respects. This bill cuts $20 million from hypersonic wind 
tunnels and infrastructure. It makes it harder for us to catch up.
  This bill cuts $261 million from 5G next-generation communications. 
These funds were supposed to go to sites across the country to kick-
start domestic innovation and explore 5G applications in military 
depots, seaports, and defense manufacturing. 5G is a big deal for the 
military, and we are competing with the Chinese especially. Yet, the 
bill cuts $261 million from what the administration requested.
  It cuts $123 million from F-15 spares and repair parts. Twenty-eight 
of these aircraft are grounded today. The average age of the fleet is 
35 years. Yet, this bill cuts $123 million from the spare parts to get 
those planes flying again. I think that is a mistake.
  The bill cuts $42 million for a missile defense test that was 
approved, on a bipartisan basis, for the SM3 Block 2A missile.
  It cuts $376 million from next-generation OPIR, which is the new 
satellite constellation to help warn against missile threat.
  Specific, concrete things--these are not numbers out of the air. 
These are specific things where Members are concerned that it leads to 
sliding backward on readiness or not making the progress that we need 
to make when it comes to our adversaries.

  That was the bill coming out of committee. Then, as we have heard, 
the bill took a disturbing turn on its way to the floor. I won't repeat 
the numbers about the Rules Committee. The statistic that concerns me 
the most, frankly, is that, of the amendments made in order that were 
contested--in other words, there was a debate; there was a difference 
of opinion; it was not agreed to--of those amendments that were made in 
order, one was a Republican amendment,  Mike Turner's amendment on low-
yield nukes. That was the only Republican opportunity to shift the bill 
in a different direction.
  Then, Madam Chair, I note that the Armed Services Committee has put 
out a press release that is titled ``Democratic Priorities in the FY20 
NDAA.''
  The first bullet says, ``This is the first time in history that HASC 
has cut $17 billion from the President's budget.''
  ``First time in history,'' not exactly a way to maintain a bipartisan 
approach to national security when the majority is boasting that, for 
the first time in history, they are cutting a President's request more 
than ever.
  I turn to page 4: ``Accelerates Closure of Guantanamo Bay Detention 
Facility. . . . Eliminates arbitrary statutory restrictions on transfer 
of detainees from Guantanamo Bay.''
  This restriction was put into law about 10 years ago under a 
Democratic majority and with President Obama in the White House. It 
prevented GTMO detainees from being transferred to the U.S. That was 
taken out in this bill. Not exactly the way to build a bipartisan 
majority.
  On page 6, the headline is ``Protects Against Nuclear Catastrophe.'' 
Underneath, it says, ``Prohibits deployment funding for low-yield 
nuclear warheads,'' and, ``Reduces requested funding for NNSA nuclear 
weapons programs by $608 million.'' Down a little lower, it says, 
``Cuts $103 million from the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent.''
  So, we are going to prevent nuclear catastrophe by cutting ourselves. 
It doesn't talk about what the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North 
Koreans, anybody else are doing. We prevent nuclear catastrophe by 
cutting ourselves.
  That is the trend that this bill has taken as it has approached the 
floor.
  I realize that there are various points of view within the Democratic 
Caucus. I note a political article that says Congressional Progressive 
Caucus leaders ``are demanding a string of concessions from Speaker 
Pelosi and her top lieutenants.''
  That is the concern, I think, that many of us have.
  Madam Chair, I would say two things.
  One is, unfortunately, this year in the House, we have spent a lot of 
time on messaging bills that are never going to be considered by the 
Senate, will never get to the President. I don't want the NDAA to turn 
into a messaging

[[Page H5742]]

bill, where we can go home and brag about something we voted, but those 
provisions have no chance of becoming law.
  Secondly, and lastly, I would say there is a lot of good in this 
bill. I have talked about some of the not so good, in my view. There is 
a lot of good in this bill. There always is in an NDAA, in a bill this 
big, good and bad. There is a lot of good, and a lot of Members on both 
sides have contributed a lot of good, but the direction it has taken is 
not for the good.
  I would suggest that Members who do care about a strong military, 
about doing the right things for our troops and for our American 
national security, consider very carefully their vote on final passage 
when it comes to that time.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  First of all, I want to echo the comments of the ranking member and 
thank our staffs for the work on this.
  I don't have the statistics in front of me, but there are literally 
thousands of proposals for this bill that are presented at the 
beginning of the committee process, working through to the full floor.
  Both staffs, Republican and Democratic--I think we are the only 
committee in Congress, or in the House, at any rate, that actually 
shares staff. We share the budget. We don't just divide it up.
  So, when I say thank you, I am thanking the Republican and Democratic 
members of staff. They do an enormous amount of incredible work to 
produce this product.
  I believe, as I will mention later, that we upheld the bipartisan 
tradition of this bill, worked with Republicans and Democrats, and 
produced a very good product. But we must acknowledge the incredible 
hard work that is done by the people sitting behind me, a lot of people 
over in the building and a lot of people over there. I appreciate that.
  I also appreciate the working relationship that I have with the 
ranking member. When I was the ranking member and he was the chair, we 
worked together on a lot of issues. We have continued to do so. I 
appreciate that leadership, and I appreciate his commitment to the 
defense bill.

                              {time}  1030

  I think this is a good bill. I just want to mention a few things in 
it that are positive.
  First of all, at $733 billion--and, again, more on that later--this 
is the largest defense bill in the history of the country. But within 
this bill, we also focus on cutting waste and dramatically increasing 
accountability. I think the taxpayers, and, yes, the troops, want to 
make sure that the Pentagon doesn't just spend money, but that they 
spend it well.
  We finally live up to the rhetoric and we give the widows the money 
that they have been asking for. Just about every single Republican 
Member of Congress is a cosponsor of this bill--  Joe Wilson is the 
prime sponsor--that fully funds widows' benefits. After cosponsoring it 
for 9 years, the Republicans were in charge and doing nothing about it, 
we actually put it in the bill and we are going to pass it. And yet, to 
hear them say that it is somehow a bad thing to basically do what they 
have been emptily promising for 8 years, I think, is a very big 
positive on the bill.
  We have a tenant's bill of rights to protect families and the housing 
that we have heard so many complaints about. We step up to try to 
protect those families.
  We have paid family and medical leave for all Federal employees, 
including all DOD employees.
  We have provisions to protect our military and our communities from 
the dangerous chemicals in PFAS that we have learned so much about.
  We make sure that troops get the pay raise that they deserve: a 3.1 
percent pay raise.
  And, yes, we also have provisions to try to make sure that the 
children who are being held by DOD within the migrant community are 
adequately protected.
  I think that is all important. And yet, for all of that, the 
Republicans oppose the bill, and it raises the question: Why?
  Earlier on, the chairman quoted me from a few years ago when we 
opposed the bill. As I said, opposing the bill doesn't mean you are 
against our troops, and I stand by that. Now, it is interesting to note 
that a large number of Members on that side at the time said that much 
and much more: that to oppose this bill means you are against national 
security and against those troops.
  To his credit, the then-chairman, Mr. Thornberry, didn't say that. 
What he said was: Look, on the defense bill, you can always have a 
bunch of excuses for why you don't support it. But, at the end of the 
day, if you don't support it, you are not supporting funding our 
military and you are not supporting giving our troops what they need.
  That is now what, en masse, the Republicans are going to do.
  So the question is: Why? What is their list of excuses?
  It starts with that top line. And this was their most brilliant 
political move.
  It has been quoted that Chairman Dunford said that we needed to have 
inflation, plus 3 to 5 percent. That was in a newspaper article. I 
thought about that. That is not actually what they said. Secretary 
Mattis was very clear. Once we got the deal last year to get to $716 
billion, he said we need inflation. That is what I remember. But how do 
we know that is true?
  Chairman Dunford and Secretary Mattis, a year ago, proposed $733 
billion. So if they believed we needed inflation, plus 3 to 5 percent, 
are they just bad at math? Did they not have a calculator available to 
figure out that $733 billion isn't that? No. It is what they said they 
needed.
  I think we now know why the Republicans at the last minute said: No, 
we have to have $750 billion: so they can come up here and claim that 
we cut stuff. That is just ridiculous.
  There are two great examples.
  The distinguished minority leader--it is possible that he is just 
this stupid, but I don't think it is true--said that we cut hypersonic 
weapons. How much did we cut them by? We increased them by $300 million 
over last year.
  But, yes, we reduced them. It wasn't actually a hypersonic weapon, 
but we made a reduction in the $750 billion request. So you create the 
$750 billion request and then you say you are cutting. We are not 
cutting, we are increasing. Which is why I say, if we had come in at 
$750 billion, they would have said $800 billion and then stood up there 
and accused us of everything else that we cut.
  And the personnel account is another great example: a $1.2 billion 
cut. Last year, in their budget, they cut the personnel account by $1.7 
billion because the Pentagon frequently asks for personnel funds that 
are not justified. That is our job.
  So only in the minds of a Republican can a $733 billion defense 
budget, that is an increase over last year, be a cut. There are not 
cuts to this budget in that way. We fully fund the military.
  And then we hear their argument about one nuclear weapon that we are 
not going to field. You heard what they said: it is unilateral nuclear 
disarmament.
  To cut one weapon when we have thousands of nuclear weapons?
  There was no way the Republican Party was ever going to vote for a 
bill put together by Democrats. And these people behind me, they worked 
their butts off to make this bipartisan. What the minority leader said 
is the biggest insult I have ever heard to the members of the staff in 
23 years on this committee. To dismiss them as partisan, not interested 
in national security is an incredible insult to the hard work that they 
do, and nobody in this House, Republican or Democrat, should let a 
statement like that stand.
  We have put together a good bill. The reason Republicans oppose it is 
for purely partisan reasons. And, that is, they want to be able to give 
speeches, like the one of the minority leader who said Democrats don't 
care about national security. We care about national security. In fact, 
I will tell you, our bill isn't just good, it is better than the ones 
that the Republican Party have put together.

  We believe the Pentagon should be accountable. They said $733 
billion. As recently as December of this year, the ranking member put 
an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal saying we had to

[[Page H5743]]

have $733 billion. And now, all of a sudden, $733 billion isn't just 
not the right number, ``it is socialism,'' ``it is destroying the world 
as we know it,'' ``we can't support it.'' That is ridiculous. It is a 
partisan argument. It is what the minority does. But it has never been 
what we have done on this bill.
  I believe in the bipartisanship of this committee. And as angry as I 
was, sitting there listening to the minority leader insult all of the 
people who have worked to make this bill bipartisan--and you can oppose 
it, that is fine--but to say that we don't care about national 
security, that we are a bunch of socialists who don't want to work with 
Republicans, is a bald-faced lie.
  And the last statistic on that is the amendment thing--and I love 
this--we made more amendments in order on this defense bill this year 
than ever. The Republicans actually submitted a lot fewer amendments 
than we did. We submitted 480, they submitted 201. And then we actually 
agreed with the overwhelming majority of their amendments and put them 
in en bloc packages. They didn't agree with the overwhelming majority 
of our amendments, so we didn't put them in en bloc packages, which 
gives them the statistic that only one of their amendments was debated.
  So by working with them and agreeing with them to include 50 percent 
of their amendments--the most amendments ever offered--that is 
partisan. And I can't help but feel like they were setting us up. They 
didn't want to work with us. No matter how hard we tried, no matter how 
many hours we spent working with them, they wanted to come to the floor 
today and say that Democrats don't care about national security.
  That is shameful. I am going to get over it. We are going to work 
past it--I think national security is too important to get petty about 
these things--and we are going to keep working together.
  The good news is that we have a very good bill. It is accountable. It 
doesn't just give the Pentagon money. Yes, we eliminate senseless 
discrimination by stopping the ban on transgender troops.
  I will say the other side is wrong. They have voted against the 
defense bill before. They voted against it in 2010 because we repealed 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. 
Discrimination in the military doesn't make us safer. Mindless bigotry 
doesn't make us safer.
  I believe strongly in this bill. The good news is, we got this, we 
are going to pass it, even if the other side is going to decide to play 
partisan politics.
  Madam Chair, I urge support for the bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. POCAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of Amendment No. 439 
which is based upon legislation that I have introduced every Congress 
since I was elected in 2012, the ``Restore Honor to Service Members 
Act''.
  This amendment will require the Department of Defense to correct the 
military records of service members discharged solely because of their 
sexual orientation. Importantly, amending service members' discharge 
characterizations to an honorable discharge will enable impacted 
individuals to access the benefits they earned and to which they would 
otherwise be entitled. It is a significant moment for the more than 
100,000 Americans estimated to have been discharged from the military 
since World War II due to their sexual orientation.
  I thank Chairman Smith for his strong support of this amendment, Paul 
Arcangeli--Staff Director of the House Armed Services Committee--for 
his assistance, and Leslie Zelenko of my staff who has worked 
tirelessly to ensure the success of the amendment before us today.
  Additionally, I would like to extend my deep gratitude to the Human 
Rights Campaign, the Modem Military Association of America, and 
VoteVets, for supporting this amendment, and Representatives Katie 
Hill, Chris Pappas, Mark Takano, Seth Moulton, Jamie Raskin, Chuy 
Garcia, Alan Lowenthal, Barbara Lee, Bill Foster, Bonnie Watson 
Coleman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Sean Patrick Maloney, Brian Higgins, Ed 
Case, Paul Tonko, Denny Heck, Jan Schakowsky, Veronica Escobar, Robin 
Kelly, Julia Brownley, Kurt Schrader, Steve Cohen, Ilhan Omar, Sheila 
Jackson Lee, Suzan DelBene, Anthony Brown, Joe Kennedy, Donna Shalala, 
Suzanne Bonamici, and Katie Porter for cosponsoring. I would also like 
to recognize Senator Brian Schatz and Senator  Kirsten Gillibrand for 
championing this legislation in the Senate. Without this outpouring of 
support, today would not have been possible. Again, I thank them.
  Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Restore Honor 
amendment, and I urge a yes vote in favor of the en bloc amendment into 
which it has been packaged.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
McCollum) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Demings, 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. 2500) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to 
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________