Congressional Record, Volume 166 Issue 127 (Monday, July 20, 2020)

[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

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.

____________________