Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the work of the conferees this year is to be commended. I don't want the gentleman from Alabama to faint that I am saying something nice, but the bottom line is that the conferees did a great job. They worked hard and fast to get this NDAA conference report to the floor today. It has been just 2 months since we brought the rule for the House version of the bill forward for consideration.

In fact, and I don't get to say this enough, this process has been an example of how Congress should operate. Members brought their ideas forward when the original bill was being considered. The Rules Committee made amendments in order. We had some real debates here on the floor, and the conference committee has now done its job. That is how this body is supposed to work.

But under this majority, it is the exception and not the norm. Bills often come before the Rules Committee without being considered by the relevant committees first. More than half of the rules that the majority brings to the floor are unamendable.

All too often, the Rules Committee is where democracy goes to die. Regular order seems like a thing of the past. It shouldn't be that way, but, all too often, it is. That is why this process is so notable.

Mr. Speaker, why are we using this process for only things like the NDAA bill? Why not for other urgent matters, like addressing gun violence, stabilizing our healthcare market, or reforming our Tax Code? Wouldn't it be nice if Congress tackled all problems like this?

Now, this process made the NDAA bill better. Many harmful environmental provisions, thankfully, were removed. That includes language that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from listing the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act for a decade.

I am also grateful that the conferees honored the sacrifice of the atomic veterans. The past three House versions of the NDAA included language that would award them a service medal honoring their sacrifice and service, which was carried out in secret and at great personal cost. It was adopted with near-unanimous votes. But, each time, it has been dropped in conference.

This year, though, the conferees have agreed to provide the atomic veterans a certificate of recognition and, in the manager's statement, have gone further by encouraging the Secretary of Defense to consider an appropriate medal or award to recognize radiation-exposed servicemembers.

For the life of me, I can't understand why it is so hard for the Pentagon to honor these proud veterans with a service medal. Over three-quarters of atomic vets have already passed away, many prematurely from health problems directly related to their service to our Nation. They and their families deserve a medal.

For the Record, I would like to say that I remain committed to making sure that they receive that recognition, and I hope the chairman and ranking member will add their voices to encouraging the Secretary of Defense to do the right thing and confer a medal that recognizes the courage, the sacrifice, and the service of the atomic veterans.

So, there are good things in this bill. That includes the increase in pay for our Nation's military. Many members of our caucus will support this conference report as a result.

Now, you would think the majority would want more bipartisan votes. It is possible, if they undertake a process like this more often. Let's bring regular order back from the dead.

Although this bill has been strengthened, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support it because very real weaknesses remain.

This conference report still endorses President Trump's plan to develop new low-yield nuclear warheads. A ban on developing these warheads has been in place for 15 years. Lifting it now could drastically impact our strategic stability at a time when the President is already upending our foreign policy.

Now, let's also talk about what is not included here. The conference report does not have language that would finally force this Congress to debate its role abroad. That is not because an amendment wasn't offered. In fact, I put a bipartisan amendment forward with my colleagues, Representatives Jones, Lee, Garamendi, Kildee, and Welch.

The amendment was pretty simple. It said any escalation of U.S. troops in Afghanistan over the next fiscal year put forward by the President or the Pentagon would have to be debated by Congress. We would have 30 days after a report was issued for Congress to either disapprove of the escalation or allow it to move forward. That is it.

It wasn't a radical idea, at least not to me or many of my colleagues. But it must have been to Republican leadership, because they did what they always do when pressed to pass a new AUMF or to have legitimate debates on the war in Afghanistan and other wars: They blocked us from even having a debate on the House floor.

Republicans will apparently try anything to avoid a debate on this subject. We submitted a similar amendment to the Rules Committee last year during the NDAA consideration, and the majority advanced an alternative amendment that called for the administration to release a report on our strategy in Afghanistan instead.

A study is not a serious attempt at congressional oversight of our foreign policy. The Trump administration must not have thought so either, since they never even bothered to send the report to Congress. It was more than 100 days late. Magically, it appeared shortly after the House had already debated and approved the NDAA. And, frankly, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Mr. Speaker, do my Republican friends even care that Congress is abdicating our responsibilities? We should be debating our role in Afghanistan. The administration has sent more than 4,000 additional servicemembers to fight over there in this last year. There are now more than 12,000 of our constituents there today.

Mr. Speaker, don't my Republican colleagues want to have a say over whether their constituents are sent to fight abroad? We are 17 years into this war. There is no end in sight. The least we could do is spend 10 minutes debating our foreign policy on the House floor.

There are reports that the President is frustrated with his Afghan policy, that he may call for a review of our role there. Well, Mr. Speaker, shouldn't Congress have a role in that new strategy? Maybe the Republicans are afraid to take on President Trump. They send angry tweets and critical press releases sometimes, but when it comes to actually doing something, they lose their nerve.

Just take ZTE. Many members of the majority were outraged when the President announced plans to prop up this Chinese tech company. President Trump tweeted: ``Too many jobs in China lost.'' Apparently, his policy of ``America First'' quickly became ``China First.''

His move came after the Secretary of Commerce had banned U.S. companies from exporting any parts to ZTE. President Trump undercut his own Commerce Secretary, urging him to reverse this ban. It was an about-face from an administration that has become defined by saying one thing one day and doing another the next.

Republicans joined Democrats on both sides of the Capitol in pledging to reimpose the penalties the President reversed. Language banning government agencies from using or procuring technology made by ZTE were included in both the House and Senate bills. The Senate had stronger language, which I was hoping would be included here. If it were, I think it would pass. But a funny thing happened as this report was hashed out. Republicans went with the watered down House language instead.

Mr. Speaker, actual leadership requires standing up and doing something and going against the President when he is wrong. But this majority has proven again and again and again that they aren't willing to do that, no matter what the President says or does.

We saw that after President Trump cozied up to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. He stood with a dictator over the American intelligence community. It was a disgrace, and the majority did nothing.

They even blocked our attempt to get a simple debate on the Quigley amendment. That would have provided funds to strengthen our election system against future hacking by bad foreign actors like Russia.

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with this President? What is wrong with my friends on other side of the aisle? We should be passing amendments to protect our election system. We ought to be passing the Engel resolution, condemning what the President did.

This is already the most closed Congress in history. Most bills that come to the floor can't even be amended by anybody, Republican or Democrat.

It is ``my way or the highway'' with this majority. That is bad enough, Mr. Speaker. But now we can't even debate protecting our democracy, just like we can't debate our military's role abroad.

We have gone from being the people's House to being more like Putin's House. It is disgusting, quite frankly. The last time I checked, this was still America, where Congress is supposed to actually debate. Let's act like it.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about the need for bills to go through the committee and conference process. That happened here. The NDAA report was crafted in a bipartisan manner.

I can't vote for the underlying bill for all of the reasons I have discussed. That includes the lack of an AUMF. But when the process is better, we should recognize that. For that reason, I will be voting for this rule. I hope that we consider more bills through a similar process.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Alabama that he may want to defend a process where the majority of bills that have come to this floor have come under a process where nobody can offer an amendment. I think that is undemocratic. I think that goes against what this House is supposed to be about. It is one of the reasons why so many of the bills that come through here, quite frankly, are deeply flawed, because everybody is shut out of the process.

This is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. Nearly 60 percent of the bills that have come to the floor have come under closed rules. Now, you expect that in Russia, you expect that in China or Turkey, but you don't expect that in the people's House.

It is unbelievable to me that my friends defend this process. When you throw in bills that don't need a rule, the suspension bills--post offices and a lot of bills that, quite frankly, are inconsequential-- you can rack up the numbers.

The bottom line is the Rules Committee has become a place where good ideas are blocked on a regular basis, and not just Democratic ideas, but a lot of Republican ideas.

I respect the Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats, enough to be able to say that, if they have good ideas, they ought to be brought to the floor. They ought not be blocked in the Rules Committee behind closed doors and never even know why they are blocked. But that is the pattern here. It has to stop.

Maybe it is going to take an election for it to stop, but this is unacceptable. I think most people around the country who are paying attention to what is going on here are fed up.

And just one other thing. When I talk about the need to debate the war in Afghanistan and these other wars where we put American lives in jeopardy, that is not partisan bickering. Most of these amendments have been bipartisan. What we are responding to is many of our constituents who have been deployed halfway around the world who come back and say: What the hell are you doing? Do you guys have any idea what is going on over here? Why aren't you talking about this? Why aren't you debating it?

We have been in a war for 17 years and we can't even have a debate. We can't even have 10 minutes on the war in Afghanistan or our growing involvement in military conflicts around the world. It is outrageous.

You can defend it if you want. It is irresponsible. And the fact that this Congress won't debate these issues, that is moral cowardice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed one of the most disgraceful displays by an American President on foreign soil in our Nation's history when President Trump refused to stand behind our intelligence community and to, instead, side with Vladimir Putin. Putin, he sided with Putin.

Then on Tuesday, via Twitter, the President changed his tune and said, ``I'm very concerned that Russia will be fighting hard to have an impact in the upcoming election,'' I guess apparently embracing the intelligence community again. And then he tweeted another tweet, basically saying that Russia is not involved in meddling in an election.

I have to tell you, this President is messed up when it comes to the issue of Russia meddling in our election. I don't know what the Russians have on him, if anything, but the behavior out of this President is not normal, and it should concern every single person, no matter what your party affiliation is.

Russia attacked our country. They meddled in our election. Everybody knows it. And we have a President of the United States who is going out of his way to cover it up, to make it seem like it never happened, to dodge the issue. We cannot count on him to protect our election system; let's just be honest about that.

We need to step up in a bipartisan way. We need to hold Russia accountable for its election meddling, and we need to insist that these attacks on our democracy stop. Russia is not our ally. They are not a competitor. They are not our friends. We have to start acting like that.

I am going to ask that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Engel's and Representative Connolly's bill, H.R. 6494, the SECURE Our Democracy Act. Their bill would punish foreign entities who interfered with our elections, going back to 2015, and punish future attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the White House cannot be counted on to protect our elections. All they are interested in is protecting the President. We need to do the right thing.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just correct the gentleman on one thing. Voting against the previous question is not voting against the bill. What it means is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It means that we can not only debate and vote on the defense conference report, but we can also debate Mr. Engel's and Mr. Connolly's bill. The gentleman is on the Rules Committee. He should know that. If we want to have this debate, we ought to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

And, by the way, we are talking about defending our country. Russia attacked us, in case you forgot, and we are trying to protect that from happening again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) to discuss our proposal for the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman's proud of the President's performance in Helsinki, but I assure you, the majority of Americans were disgusted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose the underlying conference report, for reasons that I have already articulated, I do support the rule because it reflects a good process where committees were respected, where the ranking members were respected. We went through a conference committee, which is something almost unheard of in this body, and so I think many of us, myself included, are reasonable when the majority behaves reasonably.

But the bottom line is, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed that aren't being addressed, and they are not being addressed because the Rules Committee routinely blocks good ideas from coming to the floor. So the only way we have an opportunity to bring up important issues is through procedural motions like defeating the previous question so we can bring up the Engel-Connolly bill, so we could actually stand up to Russia.

So we are going to vote for the rule. We are asking you to stand up to Russia. I don't think that that is a bad exchange.

So vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's stand up to Russia before we go home. Let's do the right thing. Let's show the President that we have a spine, that we disagree with what he did and we are going to do the right thing here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his leadership of the committee. Our committee is committed to completing this process every year, and I think it is a great example of how the legislative process should work. It is bipartisan; it follows regular order; and the chairman deserves a great deal of credit for making sure that both of those things happened.

He has been very inclusive of all the members of the committee, Democrats and Republicans, and also all the Members of this House who have had interest in what goes into this bill to make sure that we have the strongest possible national security policy.

I really appreciate his leadership, but I also share with him the gratitude that we have for our staff and the incredible hard work that they do to pull this process together. As the chairman mentioned, this is the soonest we have completed the NDAA--knock on wood, assuming we complete it--in my entire time in Congress. That took a lot of people doing a lot of work, Members and staff alike.

The chairman mentioned some of the legislative counsel staff. These are the people who when at the absolute last minute we decide, oh, we prefer it done this way, they are the ones who have to go back in and rewrite the entire thing and redo the entire thing at all hours of the night. They do a spectacular job and are frequently unrecognized.

The chairman mentioned some of them. I want to mention the rest: Mark Synnes, Hank Savage, I am going to do my best on this name--Kalyani Parthasarathy, Tom Cassidy, Casey Ebner, and Paul Kubicki. These folks do an amazing job for our country and for the men and women in the military. I really appreciate their tireless work and the outstanding product they produce for us each year.

I agree with the chairman that we have a very strong bill this year. I also agree with the chairman that if any one of us were to write it, we would write it differently. There are things we would like to see in that were left out and things that are in that we prefer were not. But that is the nature of the legislative process. It is a compromise, an effort to work together to hopefully come up with a good product, and I think that is what we did this time.

The chairman mentioned a number of the highlights.

I am particularly focused on the fact that we do have language in this bill to take a look at the issue of civilian casualties as a result of some of our military action throughout the world, to get a better read on exactly what is happening and how we can minimize those.

There is also language for a review of exactly what our military is doing in Yemen, to make sure that it complies with the law and complies with the interests of the United States.

I am also pleased that, once again, we were able to avoid putting any environmental riders into this bill.

Also, I agree with the chairman that this bill really shores up our ability to contend with the adversaries that most threaten us.

On Russia, we have the largest increase in the European defense initiative that we have had in a defense bill. We also shore up our support for Ukraine and the rest of our NATO allies by reaffirming our commitment to NATO and our commitment to defending them from any Russian aggression.

Where China is concerned, as the chairman mentioned, we have very strict restrictions on ZTE and also on Huawei and other Chinese companies to make sure they can't do business

with the U.S. Government or with companies that do business with the U.S. Government.

I do want to address one issue that I heard brought up during the rule. I think there is a popular misunderstanding that somehow our bill is responsible for the deal that led ZTE back into the U.S. market. That is not true. The President of the United States decided to undo what he had done previously, blocking ZTE from doing any business in the U.S., and basically fined them $1 billion. ZTE is paying $1 billion to get out from under the effective death penalty and be allowed back into the U.S. market.

For our bill to have undone that, as the Senate bill did, it would have required us to cut $1 billion in mandatory spending. Now, I don't agree necessarily with the Parliamentarian's ruling there, that the $1 billion that ZTE paid is something that we should have had to offset if we undid the deal. But we have to live by the law. This is also mandatory spending, so if we were going to get rid of the ZTE deal and get rid of that $1 billion, we would have literally had to cut retirement healthcare for the men and women who served in the military. I don't think that is something that anyone on this floor would have been willing to do.

So this bill does step up to confront our adversaries in Russia and China. I also think it reflects the values, as I mentioned, of dealing with the civilian casualty issue and trying to get a bead on what is going on with Yemen. And it reflects a reasonable compromise between the House and the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by echoing the words of our chairman in being grateful that this bill is named after Senator McCain. I knew Senator McCain before I even got into politics, just as a prominent national figure, a war hero, and someone to be greatly admired. It is one of the great honors of my career that I have had the privilege to work with him on the Armed Services Committee process over the course of the last 5 years as ranking member.

John McCain is as tough, smart, and committed to this country as anyone you will ever find. It is truly fitting that this bill is named after him. He will be remembered as one of the great heroes of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member on the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I want to particularly thank him for his leadership on climate change and alternative energy. He has done a great job of inserting those issues in this bill. I appreciate that leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas). I note she is retiring from

Congress this year, and I really appreciate her tremendous service on the Armed Services Committee and to this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and also served on the conference committee this term.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his comments because this is an issue we wrestle with in conference committee every year. We should be getting visas to those people who helped us out.

For some reason, it is a mandatory score in terms of what it costs; and as I mentioned on the other issue, we struggle to find mandatory money. But rest assured, this is a priority that we will continue to fight for because I know how important this issue is, and I thank the gentleman for raising that.

On the bill itself, let me say I intend to support the defense bill. I haven't always supported the defense bill. It is part of a collaborative process. We worked together and tried to generate a good piece of legislation, and I think, on balance, we did that this year.

Number one, when you start with the top-line number, the budget agreement that we got earlier this year for FY18 and FY19 helped a great deal because it put in place clear top-line numbers for defense and for the rest of discretionary spending. And that has been the battle.

Let me just say clearly that ever since the Budget Control Act was passed in 2011--and I know they have reasons for why that was passed-- the military and the rest of our discretionary budget has had to live under, I think it is, three or four government shutdowns, multiple threatened government shutdowns, continuing resolutions, and, in general, complete uncertainty on how much money they were going to have from one month to the next.

This is a horrible way to run the government. We need to come up with a fiscal policy that sets clearly what we are going to spend on discretionary spending and gets it done as close to October 1 as possible.

This has a devastating impact on our military's ability to be prepared to defend this Nation, to be prepared to fight the fights that we ask them to fight.

It is worth noting, it also has a devastating impact on all other aspects of the discretionary budget: on infrastructure, education, just to name a couple. So getting back to regular order on fiscal policy is enormously important.

I will also note--and I chose not to belabor the point this year, though I have talked about it in the past--that the Budget Control Act alone is not the problem. We do need to get rid of the Budget Control Act because it is a terrible way to budget and govern, but even once we do that, we still have a $22 trillion debt.

We just passed another massive tax cut, and when you project out where our budget is going to be, we are looking at trillion-dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see and the largest debt that we have ever had as a nation, even as a percentage of GDP.

The most important thing that we can do to give a guarantee of predictability to the men and women who serve in the military is to address the fiscal issues that we face as a nation. If we honestly address those issues, we are going to have a devil of a time paying for everything in the military that I know some on this floor would like.

So we need to get to a consistent fiscal policy if we are going to have the dependability that I know the chairman wants, that I know everybody in this committee wants going forward; and if we don't do that, that uncertainty is going to continue going forward.

Let me just say that to get the proper fiscal policy is going to require us to honestly assess the problems we face. And I will say just one more quick word about that before returning back to the bill.

Earlier this year, or earlier this session, we passed, as I mentioned, a significant tax cut. We passed a significant increase in spending. I think the tax cut was roughly $2 trillion. The increase in spending was $500 billion. And then the very next week, we put on the floor a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

There were 134 Members of this body who voted for the tax cut, for the spending increase, and for the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That doesn't make any sense. That doesn't add up. That is pure politics because, by and large, people want to see their taxes cut and they want to see their favorite programs increased and they would like to have a balanced budget. So we tried to do all three and wind up in a horribly inconsistent position.

I would urge all of us to continue to work to get to some fiscal policy that makes sense because the result of a fiscal policy that doesn't add up is budgetary uncertainty for the discretionary budget, the largest portion of which is the Department of Defense.

This bill does the very important job of setting defense policy for this country, and most important in all of that is it makes sure that the men and women who fight and serve in our military have the training and the equipment they need to carry out the missions that we give them.

Now, again, going forward, we have big challenges. We have never faced a more complex threat environment. We face Russia and China and Iran and North Korea and terrorist organizations spread out all over the globe. It is incredibly complicated and difficult, and it is going to be very expensive, unless we make some smart choices. So we are going to have a tough time meeting the budgetary requirements that we have, no matter what.

But in this bill, I think we addressed all those issues, and I think we addressed them very well and in a bipartisan fashion. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we do work with our allies to confront the challenges in Russia and China, which are critically important to us going forward.

We also, thanks to the chairman's leadership, continue our effort at acquisition reform, because one thing is for sure: Given the budget reality that I just described, no matter what, we are going to need to make sure that every dollar we spend at the Pentagon is well spent. Acquisition reform is one of the keys to getting us to that point, to more efficiently spending our money.

I want to close by thanking the chairman, thanking Senator McCain, Senator Inhofe, who was also a big part of the process this year, and Senator Reed, and all the members of the Armed Services Committee and their staff.

Once again, I want to reiterate, in this committee, we do legislation the way it is supposed to be done: bipartisan and under regular order. This place can work. The legislative process can work.

We had a very long markup in the Armed Services Committee in which we considered a lot of issues, debated them, had votes, then we went to the floor, then we went to conference committee, and we produced what I think is an excellent product for the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the conference report and again thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1027 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1027 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 5515, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

This NDAA process has once again been a textbook example of how Congress should work. After extensive hearings in the House and the Senate, lengthy committee markups, hundreds of amendments, separate passage in both Chambers, and a conference committee, we have reached the point of final passage.

This has been a process that has followed regular order and allowed so many Members to have a role in the process. Here in the House, that is a testament to Chairman Mac Thornberry, Ranking Member Adam Smith, and their very capable staffs.

This is the earliest the House has passed the final version of the NDAA in 41 years, which is a remarkable feat. A considerable amount of time and effort has been put into this product, and I know I join other Members of the House in expressing our deep gratitude for their efforts.

This year's NDAA offers the next steps in our effort to rebuild our military and reform the Pentagon. I know many of us have been deeply troubled by the readiness crisis that struck the military over the last several years. This has resulted in training accidents and failures that took the lives of our servicemembers.

To reverse that trend, this year's NDAA allows for increased funding for training, as well as $2.8 billion for the procurement of spare airplane parts.

In response to recent naval incidents in the Pacific, the NDAA directs the Navy to review their operational chain of command and current training plans for surface warfare officers. The strategy of peace through strength requires us to continue to produce and procure the best tools and resources possible.

In an effort to build toward President Trump's goal of a 355-ship Navy fleet, the NDAA authorizes the construction of new ships, including a Ford-class aircraft carrier, additional Virginia-class attack submarines, and three littoral combat ships.

Given the range of challenges in the nuclear domain, the NDAA supports the Nuclear Posture Review's recommendation to pursue a lower- yield ballistic warhead while also making important investments in our missile defense programs.

Very important, the NDAA authorizes a 2.6 percent pay raise for our servicemembers, which is the highest increase in 9 years. This is critical to recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest.

Additionally, this NDAA focuses on policies specific to Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, as well as provisions relating to nonstate actors and terrorist organizations.

I am also pleased that the conference report contains a compromise final version of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act. Congress has come together in a strong bipartisan manner to recognize the growing threat of countries like China in weaponizing financial investment, threatening our advanced technologies, and undermining our defense industrial base.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS, is an interagency body led by the Treasury Department tasked with reviewing foreign investment for national security concerns. However, United States law governing CFIUS has not been modernized for more than a decade, and it is not designed to address today's modern, evolving threats.

The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act gives CFIUS much-needed additional authority to address real national security threats without unduly burdening foreign investment in the American economy and slowing American economic growth in the process.

I could go on and on about the important reforms and priorities in this legislation, but these should give you an idea of our focus on standing up to our adversaries and supporting our servicemen and - women.

Mr. Speaker, just this past weekend, I was able to spend time with some of these fine servicemen and -women in the Pacific, where they are taking part in the RIMPAC naval exercise, the largest in the world.

It is amazing to see the work these young men and women, some of them very young, do on a daily basis. Whether it is landing planes on an aircraft carrier or steering a massive warship, these individuals are asked to carry out incredibly complicated and dangerous tasks, and they do it exceedingly well.

It is the least we can do to show these courageous and patriotic Americans we have their backs by passing this NDAA on a strong bipartisan basis.

We deal with a lot of complicated and, frankly, divisive issues in this body, but, today, on this issue, I hope we can show, for our national security and the people who devote so much to keep us safe, we can rise above the divisiveness of today's politics.

Let's pass the NDAA for the 58th straight year and make sure all our servicemen and -women know we have their backs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 1027 and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman.

I would remind the gentleman that this so-called closed Congress has passed over 600 bills. Record numbers of bills have been passed by this Congress. This is a remarkably productive Congress, and all of us should take pride in the fact that over 80 percent of those bills were passed in a bipartisan fashion. So we have every reason to be proud of the work that we have done here not just this year, but last year as well.

I also want to address what the gentleman had to say about an AUMF. We, indeed, as a Congress have a role to play in the foreign defense policy of this country. The bill that underlies this resolution that we have today is the National Defense Authorization Act. It is several hundred pages of policy that is set by the Congress. So we are participating in a very active fashion, both in oversight and in helping set this policy.

I am very proud of the work that the members, Democrats and Republicans, in the House Armed Services Committee have done. This bill shows that Congress has a constitutional role that we are fulfilling. And I believe the very strong, bipartisan vote we are going to see on the bill demonstrates that all of us, or at least most of us, the vast majority of us, feel the same way.

I want to say this very clearly. The young men and women who serve us every day abroad and put their lives at risk deserve from us not partisan divisiveness on this day, they deserve our unity. They deserve to hear from us that we are not going to sit and have some partisan bickering but that we have their back. If we can't do that on this day, then we need to all go home this August and reexamine our consciences.

There are other days and other times to debate other issues, but on this day, let's stand up as one House and as one country for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a vote against the previous question is a vote against this bill, which is there to defend America and support our servicemen and -women.

Make no mistake about it: You can't change the subject. The subject is the defense of the country. The subject is standing behind our servicemen and -women.

Now, let's make this clear. It was under the previous administration that Russia meddled in our elections, not under this administration. It was under the previous administration that Russia illegally seized Crimea. It was under the previous administration that we refused to arm the Ukrainians, who were simply trying to defend themselves. We are now arming them. This administration is doing that.

I remember in the Presidential election of 2012, the Republican nominee for President said that the biggest threat to the United States of America is Russia, and he was laughed at. They are not laughing now.

This bill provides what we need to have to pushback against Russia, to arm the people who want to fight against Russia, and to stand with our servicemen and -women. To try to distract from that with some debate over a previous question on something that has nothing to do with defending this country, I wish we wouldn't do that in this House.

But I understand we have to make some partisan points before we leave here for August, and I a disappointed we are making those partisan points. We have an opportunity to stand up as one body and as one nation for our servicemen and -women.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that today Russia faces more sanctions than they have faced since the end of the Cold War; more sanctions today than under the previous administration. This Congress and this President is pushing back against Russia. I am proud of what we are doing to push back on him, and we may not be done with that yet. We may need to do more. I stand ready to do more.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman that in this bill, ZTE is prohibited from doing any business with the United States Government, and any company that does business with the ZTE is prohibited from doing business with the United States Government.

If we did what she suggested we do, we would have to find some way to save a billion dollars out of mandatory spending under the Defense Department. There is very little mandatory spending over at the Defense Department.

Let me tell you what it is. It is the retirement. It is what we require people to pay for their TRICARE, the people who have already served in the armed services. We have to make them pay more money for their healthcare.

I don't want to penalize those people who have already served our country. I stand with them. For that reason, I think this bill is plenty strong against ZTE. I think we have reached a good compromise here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the gentleman's amendments were included in the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today we are here to talk about not only defending the United States of America from all of our adversaries, Russia, especially, but to stand behind the men and women in uniform. And, yes, I do associate myself with them.

I am not one of them, but I am one of their supporters. And I hope that the vast majority of us in this body will stand up with them and be their supporters today both on the previous question on the rule and also on the bill when it comes before the body.

If we really want to push back against Russia, we will stop the games, and we will pass the rule, and we will pass the bill. That is how we stand up against Russia. Having a bitter, partisan debate before we do so only helps our enemies.

Let's stand together on this issue. We will come back after the break in August and debate the other issues, but let's send a clear message to those brave young men and women, that we have their back. We can do that by doing our duty today.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1027 and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1027, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 5515.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to express my appreciation to the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Smith, not only for his work on this conference, but also for his work throughout the process of bringing this bill to fruition. However strongly he and I may disagree on some particular issues, it is always clear that he seeks, first and foremost, to do the right thing for our military personnel and our country's national security, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to work with him.

Second, I want to thank all the members of the conference committee and of the House Armed Services Committee. Each of them has contributed to this final product, although I suspect none of them is pleased with everything that is or is not in it.

It is the result of a negotiation between House and Senate Members with a variety of interests. Taken as a whole, however, I think all Members who participated, whether in committee, in conference, or here on the floor, can be proud of the result.

Third, I want to thank our staff, both committee staff and personal staff. They worked long and hard to get this done and get it done earlier than we have in many years. I especially want to thank the committee staff director Jen Stewart, as well Paul Arcangeli and my personal chief of staff, Josh Martin, for all of their work.

Mr. Speaker, next, I want to express particular appreciation to a group of folks who often do not get publicly recognized in order to do this conference report and do it on the timeframe we have had available. Those working in legislative counsel have had to work extraordinarily hard, and I am grateful to each of them. Some of those in legislative counsel who have worked on this product include Hadley Ross, Sherry Chriss, Tony Sciascia, Noah Wofsy, Ken Cox, Brendan Gallagher, and Mat Eckstein. There are others who will be named shortly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Rules Committee and that staff for helping us work through a procedural issue in the last couple of days.

Mr. Speaker, this bill takes a major step forward in rebuilding our military, reforming the Pentagon, and better preparing this country to deal with the national security challenges that lay before us.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, this bill continues to make readiness a key focus, for if we send our men and women out on missions, then they deserve to have the best equipment, the best training, and the best support that this country can provide.

It advances implementation of the new National Defense Strategy, so we can be better prepared against threats from peer or near-peer adversaries, such as Russia and China. In fact, there are many, many provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, directly related to countering the aggressive actions we have seen from each of those countries.

One section of this conference report is the first update to our foreign investment laws in many years. I commend Chairman Hensarling, Chairman Royce, and, of course, Speaker Ryan for negotiating a strong CFIUS bill, which helps protect our Nation's security.

This conference report also prohibits the Federal Government from buying products or services from Chinese telecommunications companies, such as ZTE and Huawei. And, importantly, it prohibits the Federal Government from doing business with any company that buys their products or services.

A more complete summary of the provisions has been provided to all Members, but the top priority of this bill and of our committee remains the men and women who volunteer to serve our Nation in the military. This bill authorizes the largest pay increase in 9 years. It provides additional assistance for spouses seeking employment; it makes transition assistance more tailored to the individual; and it prohibits the closure of military healthcare facilities; all of that and more focused on our people, who are our most valuable asset.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of patriotic Americans serving our country, one provision on which the House receded to the Senate was the title of the bill. We happily agreed to name this legislation after Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We do so not just because of his current position but in recognition and in tribute to a lifetime of patriotic service to our Nation.

Navy pilot, prisoner of war, Member of the House, Member of the Senate, Presidential nominee, whatever his job, whatever his role, John McCain has carried it out with passion and intensity and with a love for our country that knows no bounds. History will find Senator John McCain to be one of the giants of our time.

While battling cancer at home in Arizona, he has helped guide this year's NDAA throughout the process. Now, that does not mean that he agrees with every one of the outcomes in this conference report. I know from firsthand experience that he can be a fierce advocate and a tough negotiator.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, Senator Inhofe has done a great job on Senator McCain's behalf, and this conference report bears Senator McCain's unmistakable stamp. He has, once again, made a strong, positive difference for the men and women in uniform and for the national security of the United States of America.

We certainly wish him and his family the best in his current fight. We thank him, and we attempt to honor him and his outstanding record of service to our Nation with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chair of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the chair of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a distinguished subcommittee chair from the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), a leader on CFIUS reform.

Mr. Speaker, I inform the Chair that at this point I have no additional speakers other than myself to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to all of the Members who came to speak on the conference report today. Yet, I have the feeling we have only begun to scratch the surface of all of the issues that are addressed in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a big bill. It is about 1,800 pages big. About 200 pages of that is the CFIUS reform, led by the Financial Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, but there is a lot that is in this bill. The distinguished ranking member just talked a bit about reform.

This bill eliminates a number of requirements that Congress had put on the Department of Defense in previous years. It streamlines some decisionmaking. It begins to put in some sort of comprehensible order all of the laws related to acquisition. It requires that there be savings of overhead expenses of a number of DOD agencies that have

not been addressed before. I could go on and on.

There was a Secretary of Defense who wrote a book a few years ago, who complained about this bill, who said that it is too much that Congress is doing to tell us what to do.

Yet, I would remind all of us, Mr. Speaker, that the Constitution puts that exact responsibility on our shoulders. It says that it is Congress' job to raise and support, provide and maintain, and make the rules and regulations for military forces of the United States.

This is the bill by which we carry out that responsibility. It is our job to do it. And this bill is the product, as you have heard, of Members of both sides of the aisle throughout the process.

There have been, approximately, 1,005 amendments that have been proposed at some point in this process: subcommittee, full committee, floor consideration, and then on to conference. About an equal number of them were Republicans and Democrats.

We have come together, as we have for each of the past 57 years, to exercise our constitutional responsibilities on behalf of the men and women who risk their lives to protect us.

I would certainly join with the ranking member and other Members, who have said: Now, in order to get the full benefit of this, we need to have an appropriations bill that matches, on time, before the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of this debate today, you have heard a lot of thanks. It is appropriate because, obviously, it takes a lot of work, by a lot of people, to put together an 1,800-page bill and try to think through the consequences of what it means for us, what it means for our servicemembers, and what it means for our allies around the world.

It truly is a team effort, a bipartisan team effort. And I believe the reason that is so, the reason it has passed every year, and has been signed into law every year for the past 57 years, is because of the men and women, of whom we are so proud, who risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. They continue to be at the forefront of our thoughts. It is on their behalf, and for their benefit, that we bring this conference report, urge its adoption, and appreciate their service to the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the Conference Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2019. I support the NDAA legislation and will vote for its adoption on the House Floor today, but I have serious reservations about how the Speaker's protocol on outside conferees was implemented for the conference on this bill. As a response to this problem, I chose not to sign the conference report.

The Speaker's protocol is not new, but it has become increasingly problematic for the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I serve as the Ranking Member. Every year, the NDAA includes more than a hundred provisions that affect the jurisdiction of our committee. I take our responsibilities to review and negotiate these provisions extremely seriously. Unfortunately, under the Speaker's protocol, we are not appointed as outside conferees on provisions the Speaker or parliamentarians consider to be minor.

I understand the motivation behind this protocol. The conference process has to operate efficiently. However, many provisions that are deemed minor under the protocol are in fact far from minor. They extend major programs or mandate congressional oversight of critical issues. The Foreign Affairs Committee brings an important perspective that is distinct from the perspective of the Armed Services Committee, and we should have a formal role in all provisions under our jurisdiction.

If the committee of jurisdiction on foreign policy matters is not allowed to have conferees on important areas of the bill, then our only alternative is to claim sequential jurisdiction over the committee- reported NDAA and act on it prior to House consideration.

I want to thank Ranking Member Smith, and his staff, for working closely with us during the conference this year. They included us fully in the process, and we are deeply grateful for this cooperation. But we need to ensure we are not just consulted, but also named as outside conferees on the entire range of provisions that fall into our jurisdiction. I strongly support the goals of the National Defense Authorization Act, and I look forward to working with the Speaker and the Office of the Parliamentarian next year to ensure that the Foreign Affairs Committee is a full participant.

Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against the Conference Report for H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.

The legislation includes several provisions that I strongly support, including giving servicemen and women a well-deserved raise of 2.6 percent. Those who serve in uniform have made extraordinary sacrifices for our country and have earned and deserve a pay raise. It also includes $6.3 billion, the largest amount ever, for the European Deterrence Initiative to help protect Eastern Europe from further Russian aggression.

Despite these important initiatives, I have strong concerns with a number of provisions included in the Conference Report. This legislation authorizes more than $708 billion, including $69 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, an account which is not counted in the budget and is not paid for. It adds to the deficit and is used as a slush fund by the Pentagon.

Unlike every other federal agency, the Department of Defense (DOD) has yet to complete a financial audit; taxpayers deserve to know how the biggest bureaucracy in the federal government spends their money. In fact, a shocking report released in December 2016 exposed $125 billion in waste that the Pentagon tried to hide from the public.

I refuse to support increased bureaucratic waste at the expense of American taxpayers and our men and women in uniform. A more accountable and transparent department would ensure taxpayer dollars are directed towards the needs of our troops and the benefits they deserve, rather than buying unnecessary weapon systems and giving the president a blank check to fund wars Congress hasn't authorized.

I have always advocated for maintaining Congress's constitutionally- confirmed prerogative to declare war under the War Powers Act and limiting the President's authority to engage in armed conflict without the consent of Congress. I strongly oppose the NDAA's continued authorization of spending for wars that are not congressionally approved. The Pentagon uses the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) to continue to justify the 17 years our troops have been fighting in the Middle East. President Trump has sent troops to Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere without seeking a new AUMF, a violation of the War Powers Act.

Additionally, the bill prohibits the closing of Guantanamo Bay, which costs more than $100 million each year to house 41 prisoners and has been used as a top recruiting tool by terrorists. The prison at Guantanamo Bay has been a black eye for the United States, has eroded relationships with our allies, undermined U.S. missions abroad, and put U.S. citizens and our troops at risk of retaliation.

Congress can make responsible cuts to our defense budget without jeopardizing the safety of our troops or undermining our national security. Fiscal responsibility and accountability at the Pentagon would allow for funds to be better spent supporting the basic needs of our troops, meeting our obligations to veterans of past wars, and ensuring our true defense needs are prioritized.