[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 127 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H3503-H3513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2021

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) rule XIX, further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 6395) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2021 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, will now 
resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered By Ms. Escobar

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the 
unfinished business is the question on amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 116-457 on which further proceedings were postponed on which the 
yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 190, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               YEAS--215

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delgado
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luria
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (NC)
     Norman
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiffany
     Tipton
     Torres Small (NM)
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Abraham
     Brown (MD)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Byrne
     Fortenberry
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Hudson
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     McHenry
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Olson
     Palmer
     Peterson
     Roby
     Rooney (FL)
     Schakowsky
     Timmons

                              {time}  1754

  Messrs. GREEN of Tennessee and STIVERS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Cardenas (Sanchez)
     Case (Cartwright)
     Clay (Grijalva)
     DeFazio (Bonamici)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Garamendi (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Gomez (Gallego)
     Horsford (Kildee)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Khanna (Sherman)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Kuster (NH) (Brownley (CA))
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Moore (Beyer)
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Pascrell (Sires)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Cicilline)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Pressley (Omar)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Richmond (Butterfield)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Thompson (MS) (Fudge)
     Trone (Beyer)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McAdams

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 
XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the adoption of amendment 
No. 4, printed in House Report No. 116-457, on which the yeas and nays 
were ordered.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. McAdams).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 179, not voting 23, as follows:

[[Page H3504]]

  


                             [Roll No. 142]

                               YEAS--227

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--179

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Murphy (NC)
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiffany
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Abraham
     Brown (MD)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Byrne
     Fortenberry
     Griffith
     Hudson
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     McHenry
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Palmer
     Peterson
     Roby
     Rooney (FL)
     Schakowsky
     Stivers
     Timmons

                              {time}  1833

  Mr. VAN DREW changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Cardenas (Sanchez)
     Case (Cartwright)
     Clay (Grijalva)
     Defazio (Bonamici)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Garamendi (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Gomez (Gallego)
     Horsford (Kildee)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Khanna (Sherman)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Kuster (NH) (Brownley (CA))
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Moore (Beyer)
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Pascrell (Sires)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Cicilline)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Pressley (Omar)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Richmond (Butterfield)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Thompson (MS) (Fudge)
     Trone (Beyer)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)


      Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the 
unfinished business is the vote on the adoption of amendments en bloc 
No. 1, printed in House Report No. 116-457, offered by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Smith) on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendments en bloc.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendments en bloc.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 336, 
nays 71, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               YEAS--336

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amodei
     Axne
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Dunn
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Fulcher
     Gabbard
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (CA)
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Holding
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Meuser
     Mfume
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (NC)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips

[[Page H3505]]


     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Young

                                NAYS--71

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Banks
     Biggs
     Bishop (NC)
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Budd
     Burchett
     Cline
     Cloud
     Davidson (OH)
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Gaetz
     Gohmert
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Grothman
     Guest
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Johnson (LA)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lesko
     Marshall
     Massie
     McClintock
     Miller
     Mooney (WV)
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Steube
     Tiffany
     Tipton
     Tlaib
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Womack
     Wright
     Yoho
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Abraham
     Brown (MD)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Byrne
     Griffith
     Hudson
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     McHenry
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Palmer
     Peterson
     Roby
     Rooney (FL)
     Schakowsky
     Timmons
     Walker

                              {time}  1908

  Messrs. KELLER and ZELDIN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the en bloc amendments were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on July 20, 2020, 
because I was not in D.C. Had I been present, I would have voted as 
follows: ``No'' on rollcall No. 139; ``No'' on rollcall No. 140; ``No'' 
on rollcall No. 141; ``No'' on rollcall No. 142; and ``No'' on rollcall 
No. 143.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on Monday, July 20 due 
to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted 
as follows: ``nay'' on rollcall No. 139; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 140; 
``nay'' on rollcall No. 141; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 142; and ``yea'' 
on rollcall No. 143.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Cardenas (Sanchez)
     Case (Cartwright)
     Clay (Grijalva)
     Defazio (Bonamici)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Garamendi (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Gomez (Gallego)
     Horsford (Kildee)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Khanna (Sherman)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Kuster (NH) (Brownley (CA))
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Moore (Beyer)
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Pascrell (Sires)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Cicilline)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Pressley (Omar)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Richmond (Butterfield)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Thompson (MS) (Fudge)
     Trone (Beyer)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Gallego

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Casten of Illinois). It is now in order 
to consider amendment No. 13 printed in House Report 116-457.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12__. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF SANCTIONS RELATING 
                   TO CONSTRUCTION OF NORD STREAM 2 OR TURKSTREAM 
                   PIPELINE PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 7503 of the 
     Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act of 2019 (title LXXV 
     of Public Law 116-92; 22 U.S.C. 9526 note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or pipelaying 
     activities'' after ``pipe-laying''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) by inserting ``, or significantly facilitated the sale, 
     lease, or provision of,'' after ``provided''; and
       (ii) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) provided significant underwriting services or 
     insurance for those vessels; or
       ``(iv) provided significant services or facilities for 
     technology upgrades or installation of welding equipment for, 
     or retrofitting or tethering of, those vessels.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Subsection (i) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Pipe-laying activities.--The term `pipe-laying 
     activities' means activities that facilitate pipe-laying, 
     including site preparation, trenching, surveying, placing 
     rocks, stringing, bending, welding, coating, lowering of 
     pipe, and backfilling.''.
       (c) Clarification.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect in accordance with (d) of section 7503 of 
     the Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act of 2019 (22 
     U.S.C. 9526 note).
       (d) Interim Report Required.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable and not later than 
     90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, shall submit a report on the matters required by 
     subsection (a) of section 7503 of the Protecting Europe's 
     Energy Security Act of 2019 (22 U.S.C. 9526 note), as amended 
     by this section, with respect to the period--
       (A) beginning on the later of--
       (i) the date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (ii) the date of the most recent submission of a report 
     required by such section 7503; and
       (B) ending on the date on which the report required by this 
     subparagraph is submitted.
       (2) Treatment.--A report submitted pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) shall be--
       (A) submitted to the same committees as a report submitted 
     under subsection (a) of such section 7503; and
       (B) otherwise treated as a report submitted under such 
     subsection (a) for purposes of all authorities granted by 
     such section pursuant to such a report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1053, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment 
that closes some loopholes on sanctions that we in the House put on 
Nord Stream 2 in December.
  It is a simple amendment. It extends sanctions to activities that are 
needed to finish the pipeline and companies that choose to insure the 
Russian ships that will likely do that work.
  These sanctions are necessary to ensure that the Russian Government 
isn't able to coerce our European friends by controlling their energy 
supply. We need to close these loopholes as soon as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, we know how Vladimir Putin operates like a two-bit 
gangster. He only knows corrupt power politics. And Nord Stream 2 is an 
attempt to increase leverage over Europe, a Europe that is and must 
remain whole and free.
  In addition to Putin's tendencies, we also know that Russia is a 
petrostate that really only has one industry, oil and gas. We know how 
Russia uses gas shipments as a power tactic.
  How could we forget that they coerced Ukraine with gas cutoffs just a 
few years ago? They have only gotten worse since then.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that some of our European friends oppose 
sanctions. They are trying to get cheaper energy for their people. I 
get that. But when Russians come bearing gifts, we should know better 
than to accept them at face value, not after Crimea, not after Georgia, 
not after assassinating people all across Europe, sponsoring coups, and 
attacking our elections.
  Now is not the time to be letting the Russians off the hook. Vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

[[Page H3506]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let's be clear, if our aim is to push back on Russian aggression and 
hold Vladimir Putin accountable, this amendment will accomplish none of 
that.
  Nord Stream 2 is a menace to peace and security in Europe, period. It 
is Putin's transparent attempt to make Europe more dependent on Russian 
energy, to tighten Russia's grip, and to put down deeper roots to 
fracture European resolve.

                              {time}  1915

  If we want to disrupt Nord Stream 2, where should we turn up the 
heat? On Russia. On Putin and the oligarchs who stand to reap billions 
with this.
  What does this amendment do? It goes after our allies. It targets 
German companies, European enterprises, maybe even Americans. But 
consequences for Russia? Forget about it.
  Spit on our closest friends, let Russia off the hook, it doesn't seem 
right to me.
  Sound familiar? It is the same refrain we have heard again and again. 
This is not good, and it should not pass.
  How are we even debating this? The amendments I offered with 
Chairwoman Waters to address Russian bounties on American lives and 
pushing back on Russian election interference? Out of order. Nobody 
would go along with those.
  The measure Chairman Schiff and I authored to prevent the collapse of 
the New START treaty, the last remaining safeguard on Russia expanding 
its nuclear arsenal unchecked? Out of order.
  The Republicans and Democrats loved this treaty when it was ratified. 
There was cross-party support for nuclear modernization, but they are 
offering a collective shrug now that the clock is ticking on its 
expiration.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act has long stood as 
a pillar of bipartisanship in advancing our security interests, but 
right now, the Republicans seem to be backing out of this. So guess 
what? We have to make sure that certain priorities are not passed 
because that is not the direction we should go in.
  I am the chairman of the most bipartisan committee in Congress, and 
that is too high a price to pay for bipartisanship.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Gallego for yielding the 
time.
  Last year, this Congress came together to oppose Putin's attempts to 
weaponize Europe's energy resources. I stand here today to urge my 
colleagues to continue to stand firm against Russia's coercive tactics.
  With the 1,200-kilometer Nord Stream 2 pipeline nearly completed, 
time is running out. Should Putin be able to finish the remaining 100 
kilometers of pipe, the energy security of the entire continent would 
be compromised.
  Let us not forget that Russia has cut energy supplies to Ukraine in 
the past and is illegally occupying parts of the country. With an even 
greater stranglehold on Europe's energy market, Putin could exert his 
influence to devastating effect.
  This amendment we debate today only clarifies and expands on 
sanctions that were passed last year. It will also put Vladimir Putin 
and his cronies on notice that they will not profit from the 
weaponization of Europe's energy markets.
  Some critics argue that a new round of sanctions on Nord Stream 2 
would infringe on European security and sovereignty. In reality, the 
opposite is true. The completion of the pipeline and the result would 
increase Europe's energy dependence on Russia and present a real danger 
to European security and sovereignty.
  Moreover, most EU members, including Poland and the Baltic states, 
oppose the NS2 pipeline project and are concerned it would give Russia 
greater political and economic leverage over Germany and the rest of 
Europe.
  In fact, the European Parliament, in 2019, adopted a resolution 
opposing Nord Stream 2 and said that the pipeline would reinforce the 
EU's dependence on Russian gas supplies.
  If completed, this pipeline would prove a powerful geopolitical 
weapon for Putin that could weaken and divide Europe. The narrow 
expansion of sanctions called for in this amendment seeks to prevent 
Putin from ever wielding this weapon to advance his malign agenda in 
Europe.
  Again, I want to thank Mr. Gallego, Mr. Turner, and the rest of the 
cosponsors for their support of this legislation.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Committee on Foreign 
Affairs Chairman Engel, for his comments, and I thank him for his 
effort to make this amendment better.
  This amendment includes all the Foreign Affairs Committee's edits, 
and it is through his leadership they were able to be tailored to the 
right targets.
  Sanctions are a tough thing to do and to get right. For sanctions to 
work, they need to bite. These do, but in a tailored, discrete way, 
thanks to the cooperation of the Foreign Relations Committee, the 
Financial Services Committee, and the minority.
  Additionally, I would like to point out something else. This 
amendment expands the list of activities that can be sanctioned, from 
pipe laying to pipeline activities. A wider set of sanctions are needed 
for Moscow to finish its power grab. These include site prep, 
trenching, surveying, placing rocks, stringing, bending, et cetera. I 
was actually surprised when I first heard how many activities were 
still allowed under the sanctions we passed in December.
  Lastly, I also want to thank the chairman for his tireless work to 
push back on the Russians in defense of our allies and to also thank 
him for his lifelong work and dedication to this Congress. This is 
critical work, and I look forward to continuing to work with him in 
that effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I first thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gallego) for really terrific work on this. He did so much to move this 
forward, and it was a pleasure having our staffs work together, and I 
thank him very much for that.
  Mr. Speaker, for years, I have been sounding the alarm on Nord Stream 
2. I have warned about the dangers of allowing Putin and Russia to 
strengthen their hand by making Europe more dependent on Russian 
energy. I have supported dozens of other efforts to hold Putin 
accountable and demand that there be consequences for his aggression.
  If I thought this amendment would ratchet up pressure on Putin and 
his cronies, I would be the first to support it. Instead, I believe 
this measure lets Putin off the hook while placing all the consequences 
for Nord Stream 2 on our friends and allies. I think it is just a wrong 
direction to go.
  If we are serious about making Putin pay a price, we should defeat 
this amendment and go back to the drawing board. I won't call for a 
vote by the yeas and nays on this measure, but I will oppose it, and I 
urge all Members to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1053, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Adams

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
17 printed in House Report 116-457.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

         In subtitle E of title XVII, add at the end the 
     following:

[[Page H3507]]

  


     SEC. __. TEMPORARY RELIEF FOR PRIVATE STUDENT LOAN BORROWERS.

         (a) In General.--A servicer of a private education loan 
     extended to a covered borrower shall suspend all payments on 
     such loan through September 30, 2021.
         (b) No Accrual of Interest.--Interest shall not accrue on 
     a loan described under subsection (a) for which payment was 
     suspended for the period of the suspension.
         (c) Consideration of Payments.--A servicer of a private 
     education loan extended to a covered borrower shall deem each 
     month for which a loan payment was suspended under this 
     section as if the borrower of the loan had made a payment for 
     the purpose of any loan forgiveness program or loan 
     rehabilitation program for which the borrower would have 
     otherwise qualified.
         (d) Reporting to Consumer Reporting Agencies.--During the 
     period in which a loan payment was suspended under this 
     section, the servicer of the loan shall ensure that, for the 
     purpose of reporting information about the loan to a consumer 
     reporting agency, any payment that has been suspended is 
     treated as if it were a regularly scheduled payment made by a 
     borrower.
         (e) Suspending Involuntary Collection.--During the period 
     for which a loan payment was suspended under this section, 
     the servicer or holder of the loan shall suspend all 
     involuntary collection related to the loan.
         (f) Notice to Borrowers and Transition Period.--To inform 
     covered borrowers of the actions taken in accordance with 
     this section and ensure an effective transition, the servicer 
     of a private education loan extended to a covered borrower 
     shall--
         (1) not later than 15 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, notify covered borrowers--
         (A) of the actions taken in accordance with subsections 
     (a) and (b) for whom payments have been suspended and 
     interest waived;
         (B) of the actions taken in accordance with subsection 
     (e) for whom collections have been suspended;
         (C) of the option to continue making payments toward 
     principal; and
         (D) that the program under this section is a temporary 
     program; and
         (2) beginning on August 1, 2020, carry out a program to 
     provide not less than 6 notices by postal mail, telephone, or 
     electronic communication to covered borrowers indicating when 
     the borrower's normal payment obligations will resume.
         (g) Definitions.--In this section:
         (1) Covered borrower.--The term ``covered borrower'' 
     means a borrower of a private education loan.
         (2) Private education loan.--The term ``private education 
     loan'' has the meaning given the term in section 140 of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1650).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1053, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 6395, the William M. 
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
  As we debate this important legislation today, we must remain laser-
focused on how our fellow Americans, servicemen, and veterans continue 
to face incredible challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  In particular, I remain concerned about the student loan crisis that 
existed long before the pandemic paralyzed our economy and threw tens 
of millions of Americans out of their jobs. Student loan debt has 
surpassed credit cards and auto loans as the largest debt held by 
consumers, second only to mortgages.
  According to the Federal Reserve, more than 40 million Americans hold 
$1.6 trillion in cumulative student loan debt. In 2019, private student 
loans comprised nearly 8 percent of the outstanding balances, amounting 
to roughly $123 billion.
  This crushing student loan debt reduces homeownership, jeopardizes 
retirement security, and limits the formation of small businesses.
  We also know that many Americans were struggling to repay their 
student loans before the pandemic. Now, it has only gotten worse.
  Prior to COVID-19, more than one in seven student loan borrowers were 
more than 90 days delinquent, and almost half did not pay down their 
balances over the previous quarter.
  That is why we created protections for student borrowers in the CARES 
Act. In CARES, we granted people with Federal student loans a break 
from their payments until next September.
  Unfortunately, private student loan borrowers continue to find 
themselves with very few relief options. During the pandemic, the 
number of private student borrowers not making repayment progress has 
increased by 36 percent.
  Even though Congress has passed a number of bills to provide relief 
during these difficult times, we have left millions of Americans 
uncovered and without necessary protections.
  That is why I proposed an amendment with the NDAA that is simple and 
fair. It would extend the CARES student loan protections that were 
provided to Federal student loan borrowers to private student loan 
borrowers who were left out. This would include a pause in borrower 
payment obligations, in accrual of interest, in negative credit 
reporting, and in debt collection.
  Additionally, the CARES student loan protections expire on September 
30, 2020, and the pandemic and the economic fallout do not appear to be 
ending in the near future. So, the amendment extends the private 
student loan protections an additional year, until September 30.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment under consideration is, first and 
foremost, bad for borrowers but is also another partisan attempt to 
complete the socialist takeover of the student loan marketplace.
  This debate detracts from the underlying bill's important work of 
providing for the national defense. In a functioning Congress, this 
student loan policy dispute would be reserved for the committee of 
jurisdiction, not the National Defense Authorization Act.
  While the amendment may sound beneficial to private loan borrowers, 
it inserts the Federal Government into private transactions in which 
neither party asked for assistance.
  The authors of this amendment assume prior education loan borrowers 
are all struggling to meet their obligation and that borrowers need a 
year-long reprieve from making their agreed-upon payments.
  The fact is, private student loan borrowers must typically go through 
rigorous underwriting standards and find a cosigner before taking on 
debt. These critical features lead to a much better performing 
portfolio than the Federal student loan program. Only 2.7 percent of 
private student loans are in default, compared with the Federal student 
loan cohort default rate of over 10 percent. There are existing options 
like forbearance to weather the storm without Federal Government 
interference.
  Indeed, there are many examples of private student loan companies 
creating COVID-19-specific relief options for their borrowers. That is 
the beauty of a competitive marketplace. When there is consumer demand, 
the market incentive will generate creative solutions.
  The truth is, borrowers benefit from making consistent payments and 
paying off their debt as quickly as possible. Congressional mandates to 
block this healthy habit can have negative outcomes for the borrowers.
  Furthermore, the proposal would not reimburse private lenders for 
this forced hiatus, which would likely lead to a collapse of the 
industry and complete the Federal takeover of student loans.
  I urge my colleagues to object to the inclusion of this misguided 
policy. We can and must do better for students across the country. The 
best way we can serve our constituents is to have a robust debate 
within the proper committees of jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the gentlewoman that, since 
March, this body has provided $600 billion in funds for the Paycheck 
Protection Program. But because of shoddy implementation, the 
administration lavished billions on this Nation's country clubs and 
private jet companies and other entities of the 1 percent. That doesn't 
even include the multiple tax breaks and the advantages for 
corporations that were written into the

[[Page H3508]]

CARES Act, which, combined, equal as much as the amount spent to 
provide Americans with $1,200 in a stimulus check.

                              {time}  1930

  So, Mr. Speaker, why is it that it is only socialism when we endeavor 
to provide relief to working-class or middle-class Americans? Why are 
American taxpayer dollars only sacred when we try to provide for those 
who are in need the most?
  We are living in unprecedented times, and so we need an unprecedented 
response. People are struggling. They are trying truly to get by, no 
fault of their own.
  We know that supporting our fellow Americans will require significant 
investments and funding, so let's find the courage and let's have some 
compassion to provide the financial support that student loan relief 
could do that they urgently need.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  This amendment is bad policy. It involves the Federal Government in 
completely private transactions and attempts to solve a problem the 
facts suggest does not exist.
  Again, the people who borrowed this money agreed to pay it back. They 
are not victims.
  This is a trend of our colleagues never to hold people responsible 
for their actions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, with 32 million Americans receiving unemployment 
benefits, nearly 20 percent of our workforce is in need of relief.
  And, yes, folks who have loans and folks who signed a contract to pay 
rent and their mortgage, because of this pandemic and they have lost 
jobs, they can't do that.
  You know, according to one higher education expert's calculations, 
some 10 billion student loan borrowers could be out of work amid the 
recession, and right now, the most important expenses for Americans are 
food, medical care, housing, and utilities.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to operate from a place of 
compassion and fairness. As Members of Congress, we are blessed to have 
jobs. No one here has lost a paycheck. We have health insurance and all 
the other basic needs that we have, so the least that we can do is 
provide a temporary economic life raft to our fellow citizens. This 
amendment gives us the opportunity to help those in need.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1053, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Houlahan

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
19, printed in House Report 116-457.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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__. REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH USE OF PERSONNEL 
                   OTHER THAN THE MILITIA OR THE ARMED FORCES TO 
                   SUPPRESS INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL 
                   LAW.

       (a) In General.--Section 253 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     President''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Use of Other Means.--(1) Other means used by the 
     President pursuant to subsection (a) may only include 
     activities by Federal law enforcement officers.
       ``(2) Any Federal law enforcement officer performing duty 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall visibly display on the 
     uniform or other clothing of such officer--
       ``(A) the name of such officer; and
       ``(B) the name of the agency for which such officer is 
     employed.
       ``(3) In this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `Federal law enforcement officer' means--
       ``(i) an employee or officer in a position in the 
     executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal 
     Government who--
       ``(I) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise a law 
     enforcement function; or
       ``(II) has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under 
     section 807(b) of this title (article 7(b) of the Uniform 
     Code of Military Justice); or
       ``(ii) an employee or officer of a contractor or 
     subcontractor (at any tier) of an agency in the executive, 
     legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government who 
     is authorized by law or under the contract with the agency to 
     engage in or supervise a law enforcement function; and
       ``(B) The term `law enforcement function' means the 
     prevention, detection, or investigation of, or the 
     prosecution or incarceration of any person for, any violation 
     of law.''.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section, or the 
     amendments made by this section, shall be construed to limit 
     or otherwise supersede the authority of Federal law 
     enforcement officials who do not wear a uniform in the 
     regular performance of their official duties or who are 
     engaged in undercover operations to perform their official 
     duties under authorities other than section 253 of title 10, 
     United States Code.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1053, the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Several weeks ago, we learned that the President was considering, and 
the Secretary of Defense was preparing for, the possibility of 
deploying Active-Duty Forces under the authorities of the Insurrection 
Act.
  The Insurrection Act was not invoked in this case, but for many 
Americans, it was the first time hearing of a law that was originally 
drafted more than 200 years ago.
  For many of our men and women in uniform, it was the first time since 
taking the sacred oath to protect and defend that they imagined that 
they might be deployed against their own fellow citizens, not against a 
foreign adversary.
  Many of us were troubled to watch as members of our National Guard 
were deployed in the Washington, D.C., area as part of our response to 
the recent protests.
  In the Armed Services Committee markup and earlier today, we heard a 
robust debate about this centuries-old authority, and that is healthy 
for our democracy.
  Personally, I believe these authorities have done some good in our 
Nation's history. The Insurrection Act authorities were instrumental in 
enforcement of civil rights laws when some States were resistant.
  This amendment, my amendment, is very narrow in scope.
  Currently, title X, section 253 of the U.S. Code reads: ``The 
President, by using the militia or the Armed Forces, or both, or by any 
other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to 
suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful 
combination, or conspiracy. . . . `' And then it goes on, but it never 
says what is meant by ``any other means.'' My amendment would say that 
``any other means'' is limited to Federal law enforcement officers who 
are clearly identifiable by name and agency.
  In the difficult scenario in which the Insurrection Act truly must be 
invoked, we cannot afford uncertainty. Our military members are clearly 
identifiable, and so must our law enforcement officers be as well. 
Blurry lines and uncertainty harm everyone and put everyone at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the engagement and support of my 
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell). He is the proud father of a son 
who is a police officer, and he has joined me in this effort after a 
discussion of our mutual objectives during the Armed Services Committee 
debate on this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H3509]]

  For 53 days, 7\1/2\ weeks, Portland, Oregon, has been burning. Three 
weeks ago, we saw the Democrats' response on the House floor. The 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Nadler, said antifa is 
imaginary. Tell that to the people of Portland, who have seen antifa 
for 53 days rioting, looting, stealing, destroying property, and 
attacking police officers.
  This amendment is no good. This amendment limits the authority of the 
President under the Insurrection Act when he needs to ``suppress 
insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.''
  The Insurrection Act has been used by many Presidents to address 
domestic violence and riots, including Presidents Roosevelt, 
Eisenhower, and Kennedy. Both parties have used it when necessary, but 
now that President Trump mentions using this to address the widespread 
violence and destruction across the Nation, the Democrat majority wants 
to put restrictions on it.
  I tell you what. The police chief in Chicago, where 49 officers were 
systematically attacked by the mob Friday night, just said he would 
welcome Federal help to deal with what the mob is doing. He knows 
antifa is not imaginary. And Andy Ngo, the journalist who was attacked 
by antifa, knows it is not imaginary.
  This amendment is not what we need to be adopting. This amendment 
would mean that the President cannot use non-Federal law enforcement 
resources under the law that authorizes him to suppress insurrection.
  Why in the world would we want to limit the options of the President 
to deal with the situation we find ourselves in?
  Under Federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist, or engage in such 
conduct against the United States. This amendment, as I said, would 
limit the President's available options and resources to address real 
threats to our Union.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this amendment requires the 
Federal officers to identify themselves. That is the primary purpose of 
this amendment, not to limit the President.
  We see what is going on in Portland right now, which is deeply 
disturbing for people in the military. We have people who are wearing 
fatigues, who appear to be U.S. military to the casual observer. They 
are not U.S. military. This undermines the credibility of our military 
to have people out there pretending to be them when they are not.
  What this amendment requires is, if you are going to use this law, 
identify yourself.
  It is deeply disturbing to the U.S. military to have people, 
effectively, impersonating them. They should clearly identify who they 
are working for if they are acting under the law of the United States.

  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, it is unusual, I know, to have a 
Republican standing here in support of this amendment while a 
Republican from the Judiciary Committee opposes it, but like many 
Americans, I was concerned to see uniformed law enforcement who did not 
have agency insignia or names displayed on their uniforms during the 
protests in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere.
  I believe, like many Americans, that transparency and accountability 
for law enforcement are important values of the American justice 
system.
  Based on the recent protests, Ms. Houlahan came up with an amendment 
that I had some concerns about during the debate. She agreed in good 
faith to modify that to address those concerns.
  You see, my oldest son is a police officer. He had to conduct police 
work both in uniform one day and undercover the second day in the 
crowd, ensuring that things did not get out of control. I talked to Ms. 
Houlahan about that. I said we need to protect those people, because it 
is valid law enforcement to have undercover officers. This language did 
that.
  This language, in fact, addresses that and assures, if you are in 
uniform, if you are carrying a shield, if you are out there, you must 
identify what agency you are with and your name. Americans expect that.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will say to the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, no one is asking about identifying antifa. We are 
asking about identifying people we expect to protect all of us and to 
conduct themselves in the appropriate manner in law enforcement. To do 
that, they must identify themselves, and we must know who they are. 
Anything short of that is not effective police work, and my son would 
tell you that if he were here today.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Kelly), I would just point out they are Federal law 
enforcement officials protecting Federal property in Portland, and they 
do identify themselves when they arrest someone, and they have 
identification on both shoulders. What else do you want them to do?
  If you come in in a marked car, you are going to get a brick through 
your window. Holy cow. They are behaving exactly the way anyone with 
common sense would and consistent with the rule of law that you would 
want them to behave in the situation they find themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  This amendment is a remedy that has no current or no historical 
problems. It is a remedy in search of a solution. We debated this in 
the Armed Services Committee.
  This goes a step further. It defines what Federal law enforcement is, 
in direct opposition of what is already defined by the Department of 
Justice.
  There is a place and time for this debate, but it is not today. It is 
not well thought out enough. It doesn't cover local and State officials 
under the Insurrection Act, like Mr. Mitchell's son probably, unless he 
is a Federal law enforcement officer. It doesn't cover Federal 
employees.
  It is just not well thought out, and right now, this is not a problem 
that needs to be addressed. There are more important issues that we 
have right now than what we think the President might do.
  Don't get me wrong. We had the same debate last year when there was 
no talk of the Insurrection Act by the President. This is just a way to 
shut down what our National Guard and what our Presidential authorities 
are because we don't like this President.
  Well, guess what. It applies to all Presidents, all those in the 
future.
  This is bad law, and it is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that 
does not exist.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to, actually, the ranking 
member of the committee I serve on.
  This is not about whether we identify the vehicle that law 
enforcement pulls up in; in fact, they often use unmarked vehicles. But 
when those law enforcement personnel climb out of the vehicle, we 
should identify who they are, what agency they are with.
  In fact, they should announce themselves, because that is what law 
enforcement does; not come out without identity, without who they are, 
what their jurisdiction is, be that in Washington, D.C., or in 
Portland, Oregon.
  They are not doing that. It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in 
America.
  This was debated at great length in committee, and this is what many 
of us agreed to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
recognize this

[[Page H3510]]

just addresses appropriate identification of law enforcement personnel 
and vote in favor of this amendment.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just add that this is not just about 
identification, which the law enforcement do identify themselves with 
the insignia and patch on both shoulders. When they are arresting 
someone, they tell them what Federal agency they are from. This is also 
about limiting the President's ability to use the Insurrection Act.
  There are two parts to this amendment. Both are bad; both are wrong. 
Therefore, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we need to take action on 
the appropriate deployment of unmarked and unidentified law enforcement 
personnel.
  While this amendment is narrowly scoped to focus on a specific 
scenario, the invocation of the Insurrection Act, I hope it helps to 
drive a conversation about these questions more broadly.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1053, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Takano

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
29 printed in House Report 116-457.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 5__. LIMITATION ON ELIGIBILITY OF FOR-PROFIT 
                   INSTITUTIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN EDUCATIONAL 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE.

       (a) In General.--Section 2006a of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) in the case of program offered by a proprietary 
     institution of higher education, the institution derives not 
     less than ten percent of such institution's revenues from 
     sources other than Federal educational assistance funds as 
     required under subsection (c).''.
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Limitation on Participation of Proprietary 
     Institutions.--The Secretary of Defense may not approve an 
     educational program offered by a proprietary institution of 
     higher education, and no educational assistance under a 
     Department of Defense educational assistance program or 
     authority covered by this section may be provided to such an 
     institution, unless the institution derives not less than ten 
     percent of such institution's revenues from sources other 
     than Federal educational assistance funds.'';
       (4) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) The term `Federal educational assistance funds' means 
     any Federal funds provided under this title, the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), or any other 
     Federal law, through a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, 
     guarantee, insurance, or other means to a proprietary 
     institution of higher education, including Federal financial 
     assistance that is disbursed or delivered to an institution 
     or on behalf of a student or to a student to be used to 
     attend the institution, except that such term shall not 
     include any monthly housing stipend provided under the Post-
     9/11 Educational Assistance Program under chapter 33 of title 
     38.
       ``(4) The term `proprietary institution of higher 
     education' has the meaning given that term in section 102(b) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(b)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1053, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, if there was a loophole in Federal law that 
led to a waste of taxpayer dollars and abuse of servicemembers and 
veterans, most of my colleagues would immediately spring into action to 
close that loophole and prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and the 
exploitation of our fellow Americans.
  Well, that is exactly what for-profit schools are doing right now by 
exploiting a loophole in the law that caps the amount of Federal 
revenue that schools can receive. This loophole, known as the 90/10 
loophole, excludes GI Bill and DOD tuition assistance benefits from the 
statutory limits on Federal revenue sources a for-profit school can 
claim.
  Because of this, for-profits have used predatory tactics to 
aggressively recruit servicemembers and veterans, stealing their 
benefits and making millions in profit while providing them with low-
quality education.
  I have heard countless stories of this exploitation as chairman of 
the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Make no mistake, I will be 
taking decisive action to close this loophole for GI Bill benefits 
recipients. But first, closing this loophole for the DOD tuition 
assistance program is an important step to rid these Federal programs 
of this perverse incentive.
  The DOD tuition assistance program, which pays up to $4,500 per year, 
has allowed servicemembers to pursue higher education at a reduced 
rate. Military education programs are extremely popular and have played 
an important role in educating millions of servicemembers.
  In fiscal year 2017, over 255,000 servicemembers received nearly half 
a billion dollars in tuition assistance funding. However, because of 
the 90/10 loophole, many of our servicemembers have been aggressively 
targeted by for-profit schools looking to make up the difference in 
their funding. This loophole has incentivized predatory institutions to 
continuously deploy deceptive recruiting and marketing tactics to 
collect as much GI Bill and tuition assistance funding as possible.
  So far, it has been lucrative. For every military student they can 
enroll, they can enroll nine more Title IV students in their low-
performing programs.
  This is not the free market at work. The fundamental basis of the 90/
10 rule was to demonstrate that a real market exists for these 
educational programs and validate the quality and cost of these 
programs. This loophole lets these predatory schools cheat the free 
market and the government by collecting up to 100 percent of their 
revenue from Federal dollars.
  This is a bipartisan issue and a bipartisan amendment. I ask that my 
colleagues stand up for our servicemembers and protect taxpayer dollars 
from predatory for-profit institutions that only view them as a benefit 
to their bottom line.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment under consideration seeks to punish a 
small business because it had the audacity to try to help military and 
veteran students achieve their educational and career potential.
  The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to deny proprietary 
colleges and universities permission to operate the DOD educational 
assistance programs if such an institution of higher ed receives more 
than 90 percent of its revenue from ``Federal education assistance 
funds.'' Federal education assistance funds include DOD tuition 
assistance, GI Bill benefits, and all Federal student aid in the Higher 
Education Act, like Pell Grants and student loans.
  Congress should not deny educational choices to military 
servicemembers because of arbitrary accounting gimmicks based on the 
whims of Congress. Sadly, that is exactly what this amendment would do 
if passed and implemented.
  What is particularly damaging about the amendment is it seeks to 
judge institutions on how students pay for

[[Page H3511]]

school and not on the success of the students. This is not what good, 
fair accountability looks like.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in accountability for all institutions, no 
matter their tax status. If this accountability framework is so great 
for students, then my colleagues should not mind applying the 
accounting standard to all institutions.
  But that is not what this is about. This is about putting hardworking 
Americans out of business. Students are an afterthought in Democrats' 
zeal to eliminate for-profit colleges.
  My colleagues would like you to believe that for-profit colleges act 
only to pad their bottom lines at the expense of students. This belief 
comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about the goals and aims of a 
business.
  Any successful small business owner can tell you that cutting corners 
and delivering an inferior product to customers in the hopes of making 
a bit more money will only result in fewer customers and less business.
  The profit motive, in fact, is a powerful incentive for proprietary 
colleges to act in the best short- and long-term interests of students. 
That is why you see several for-profit institutions spending all the 
money received from the CARES Act on direct student aid. Without a 
reputation for delivering successful results, these colleges would 
cease to exist.
  Additionally, this amendment has the perverse incentive of forcing 
colleges to increase their tuition, thereby shutting out opportunities 
for students who might be unable to afford these increases.
  We should not be putting forward additional harmful regulations that 
cause college costs to increase. Instead, we should be looking to 
provide incentives to decrease costs while also judging all 
institutions based on how they improve the lives of the students they 
serve.

  I urge all Members to reject the inclusion of this amendment. Vote 
``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
my side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining on each side.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Takano for yielding and for 
his leadership, along with Representative Lee, on this issue.
  If only it were true that no servicemembers or no veterans were taken 
advantage of, were never put into a junk program by one of these 
organizations. If only that were true. But we know it is not, and this 
legislation intends to address that.
  The GI Bill loophole is real. It has incentivized for-profit colleges 
to aggressively target veterans into these junk programs. Not all, but 
any organization that can't stand up a program without relying 100 
percent on the funding that we provide has to face some scrutiny.
  This is a rule that has worked, and it is a rule that ought to be 
extended to protect those people who have made the most significant 
sacrifice that Americans can make by putting on the uniform of their 
country and serving us. They deserve no less.
  This amendment would come to their aid, and I support it. I commend 
my colleagues for offering it.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Mrs. Lee), one of my committee members on the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I stand with Congressman Takano in 
support of this amendment to close the 90/10 loophole for the 
Department of Defense military education benefits.
  Educational institutions are required to derive at least 10 percent 
of their revenues from non-Federal sources. The intent of this 
requirement is to ensure that schools offer an education that is of 
high enough value and high enough quality that people would actually 
want to use their own money to pay for it.
  It is about proving market viability, which is supposed to guarantee 
that taxpayers will not support low-quality schools. If they can't 
compete in the open market, they should not be supported entirely by 
the government.
  This loophole, which effectively treats Defense Department money as 
the same as what is supposed to come out of people's pockets, violates 
the safeguards we intended to have in place. That is why it is called a 
loophole. And it explains why certain untrustworthy colleges, many of 
which are for-profit, target servicemembers and veterans.
  Closing this loophole is a concrete step to ensuring we protect our 
servicemembers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. The gentleman from California has no time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  We have heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
for-profit institutions, proprietary schools, are taking advantage of 
veterans, in particular. The bottom line is this amendment is arbitrary 
and is not a meaningful accountability tool.
  Let me point out that the University of Maryland University College, 
which recently changed its name--I hear it advertising every morning on 
the radio--actively recruits and enrolls many, many veterans, a very 
high percentage of veterans, and is a university supported by the 
taxpayers of Maryland, along with Federal taxpayers.

                              {time}  2000

  But it has for many, many years had a graduation rate less than 10 
percent. I don't hear my colleagues talking about, again, other 
institutions which have abysmal graduation rates and serve many 
veterans being held to the same accountability measures. This is not 
fair.
  We hear a lot about fairness from our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. Let's be fair. Let's apply the rules to everyone--everyone--
Mr. Speaker.
  Our students, particularly the brave men and women in uniform, 
deserve better from us no matter where they might choose to continue 
their education. So let's be fair. Let's make the rules the same for 
everyone. Let's not go after institutions that have been in existence, 
some for hundreds of years, because our colleagues don't like groups of 
people that make a profit.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1053, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Takano).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 143 will not be offered.


                Amendment No. 167 Offered by Mr. Panetta

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
167 printed in House Report 116-457.
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer amendment No. 167 as the 
designee of Mr. Hastings.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12__. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE OPEN SKIES TREATY.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the decision to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies, 
     done at Helsinki March 24, 1992, and entered into force 
     January 1, 2002--
       (A) did not comply with the requirement in section 1234(a) 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2020 (133 Stat. 1648; 22 U.S.C. 2593a note) to notify 
     Congress not fewer than 120 days prior to any such 
     announcement;
       (B) was made without asserting material breach of the 
     Treaty by any other Treaty signatory; and
       (C) was made over the objections of NATO allies and 
     regional partners;

[[Page H3512]]

       (2) confidence and security building measures that are 
     designed to reduce the risk of conflict, increase trust among 
     participating countries, and contribute to military 
     transparency remain vital to the strategic interests of our 
     NATO allies and partners and should continue to play a 
     central role as the United States engages in the region to 
     promote transatlantic security; and
       (3) while the United States must always consider the 
     national security benefits of remaining in any treaty, 
     responding to Russian violations of treaty protocols should 
     be prioritized through international engagement and robust 
     diplomatic action.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1053, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, in 1955, President Eisenhower proposed an 
agreement which would allow overflight of the participant countries to 
gather information about military forces and activities with the direct 
intent of minimizing military escalation between the West and Russia.
  In 1992, Eisenhower's vision was realized after negotiations by a 
Republican administration that led to the Open Skies Treaty, a treaty 
which has brought more openness but also more mutual understanding and 
an avenue to hold Russia accountable for their aggression against our 
allies in Europe. But, more importantly, the Open Skies Treaty calls 
for higher levels of openness and transparency, leading to better 
predictability and stability, which, ultimately, will lessen tensions 
by trusting and, yes, by verifying.
  Unfortunately, on May 22, the administration submitted a notice of 
intent that the U.S. would withdraw from the treaty in violation of the 
fiscal year 2020 NDAA, which requires a 120-day notice to Congress 
prior to doing so.
  This announcement was obviously met with strong opposition from our 
NATO allies and treaty participants and, yes, many here in the United 
States, for no country adherent has benefited more from this 
transparency than the United States, which, together with its allies, 
overflies Russia far more often than Russia can overfly NATO countries.
  There is no better example of this benefit of the Open Skies Treaty 
than the support it has provided to Ukraine, both in 2014, when it was 
used to confirm that Russia had deployed thousands of troops near the 
Ukrainian-Russian border, and again in December 2018, when an 
extraordinary flight was conducted following the unprovoked Russian 
attack of Ukrainian vessels in the Kerch Strait.
  Now, we cannot ignore Russian violations of the treaty, but, one, 
they do not negate the value of the treaty and certainly do not justify 
withdrawal. Instead, the administration should do what was required in 
previous NDAAs: put together a plan for broad sanctions tied to these 
violations and continue to use diplomatic means together with our 
allies to pressure Russia into compliance.
  Walking away from this 34-nation treaty will negatively impact our 
relationships in Europe, give Russia a gift in creating discord amongst 
our partners in the region, and vacate a key U.S. leadership role in 
countering Russian malign activities.
  The worth of this treaty does not necessarily come in the form of the 
images that are captured but, instead, the value it brings to our 
alliances, particularly with our Eastern European partners and friends. 
It was stated by former Secretary Mattis: ``Despite Russia's violations 
of its obligations under the treaty, it is my view that it is in our 
Nation's best interest to remain a party to the Open Skies Treaty.''
  This amendment, Mr. Speaker, would provide a sense of Congress about 
the importance of this treaty, the value it brings to our allies, and 
express that the notice of intent to withdraw was done in violation of 
the law.
  That is why I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate that the advocate to 
the amendment slipped into his comments that Russia cheats, because 
that is why we are stepping out.
  Mr. Speaker, you can't have a treaty with just yourself. You have to 
have a treaty with two parties or more, and those parties have to 
comply or you really don't have a treaty.
  Unfortunately, though, the gentleman went on to state that no one 
benefits more than the United States. It is just absolutely not true. 
Very publicly, we have held hearings on this in my subcommittee. The 
intelligence community and the DOD have openly stated that the 
information that we receive from Open Skies is duplicative and is even 
inferior to the other sources of information we have.
  With respect to our allies, we don't kill this treaty by stepping 
out. They can stay in. If they want to do flyovers, they can do their 
own flyovers. The thing that we are not going to do is do the flyovers 
for them and then hand them the information.
  But what is really important about the ``yeah, Russia cheats'' is 
let's talk about how Russia cheats.
  Trust but verify? You can't verify if they cheat. The Kaliningrad in 
Europe is one of the places where Russia hosts missiles that hold all 
of our allies and the United States at risk. Russia limits overflights, 
and then Russia does a really neat trick like they invade Georgia. They 
declare the areas that they invade as totally new countries and then 
say that we can't overfly what they are doing in these areas that they 
occupy of our ally Georgia.
  It is incredibly important that we step out of this treaty. They are 
not complying. It does not provide benefit to us.
  The other aspect that I think probably should be the most concerning 
to every American listening to this, in our hearings in our committee, 
the DOD absolutely states that Russia incorrectly uses this information 
to target assets in the United States--target, that is right, to bomb 
the United States--which is completely a violation of the treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Congressman Panetta and 
Congressman Hastings for their leadership and their work on this issue 
in bringing this amendment to the floor.

  When President Trump came into office, Mr. Speaker, he turned allies 
into adversaries and autocrats into accomplices. He saw friendship and 
loyalty as weakness and saw dictators as his new best friend. That has 
led to American foreign policy that is now in shambles. It has rendered 
American leadership meaningless in parts of the world and has left a 
vacuum that continues to be exploited by nations like Russia and China. 
It has torn treaties that reinforced global peace to shreds.
  One of those, the Open Skies Treaty, has ingrained transparency and 
accountability around the world. For nearly two decades, it has 
strengthened peace across the United States, Europe, and Russia. Now 
our President has tried to reduce the hard work of fostering that peace 
to shambles. Even as he follows those dictators into unrest and 
potential violence, we will not follow, and certainly no Americans 
yearning for peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect peace and to vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. I think this amendment actually highlights the hypocrisy at 
the heart of the foreign policy and national security policy our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they advocate.
  This is a situation in which the President has said that Russia is 
cheating and, therefore, I will not allow Russia to cheat. I will not 
allow the United States to continue to be party to a treaty that 
enables Russia to gather information about us in violation of the 
treaty.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle consistently say and 
accuse the President of not being tough enough on Russia, but here we 
have a situation where the President is doing exactly that. The United 
States senior counterintelligence official, Bill Evanina, recently has 
said that Russia

[[Page H3513]]

has, for years, ``used the Open Skies Treaty to collect intelligence on 
civilian infrastructure and other sensitive sites in America.''
  The Kremlin has been abusing this treaty to gather intelligence on 
the United States. The President was absolutely right to withdraw, and 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to be consistent. If 
they say that they stand on principle, then they need to be consistent 
about that principle and not simply oppose things because Trump 
supports them. The President was right to get out of this treaty. It is 
dangerous to our security.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Trump administration has 
withdrawn from historic international treaties and agreements that 
previous leaders of our country have negotiated where, instead of 
walking away from what were deemed impossible agreements at that time, 
they actually did the work necessary to make our country and the world 
a safer place.
  The Open Skies Treaty was negotiated by President George H.W. Bush to 
reduce the chances of accidental nuclear war by providing transparency 
and confidence. President Trump's withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty 
has made our world a less safe place. In addition to his withdrawal 
from the INF treaty and his failure to renew the START treaty, he has 
pushed us into a new cold war that has led the American people to the 
brink of nuclear catastrophe.
  Mr. Speaker, these consequences are unacceptable for the American 
people, and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we have before us, the National Defense 
Authorization Act that is proceeding as a bipartisan bill. Chairman 
Smith committed himself to that, and Ranking Member Thornberry worked 
diligently to make this a bipartisan bill. So you only see the 
differences, as Congresswoman Cheney was saying, when you come to these 
amendments.
  What is unfortunate about the differences between this side and that 
side of the aisle is amendment after amendment has been paraded on the 
other side of the aisle that want to disarm the United States, restrain 
our weapons programs, and shackle us to treaties where the other side 
cheats. I would have loved to have stood here while the time for this 
amendment was spent to implore Russia to stop cheating and to implore 
Russia to come to the table and begin to comply with the treaties that 
they have undertaken.
  I would love for the time when there were discussions of amendments 
on the other side to shackle our nuclear weapons programs to instead 
point out that China is launching more ballistic missiles for testing 
and training than the entire rest of the world combined.
  I would have loved for the speakers on the other side of the aisle to 
march down to the microphone and tell this country about Skyfall, the 
new weapon ICBM that Russia is putting together that is nuclear powered 
that can orbit the planet before it comes down and does its 
devastation.
  I would have loved for our adversaries to be the target of the words 
from the other side and not our own programs to defend our Nation.
  It is absolutely essential that we not stay in treaties that are 
negative to the United States and where our adversaries are not 
complying.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1053, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Panetta).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________