Interim Stay Authority To Protect Whistleblowers Act

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2500.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chair, this, as always, is an incredibly important piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation by which we provide for the national security of this country, and every little bit, as importantly, we provide for the men and women who put their lives on the line to provide for the national security of this country.

For 58 years, we have passed the National Defense Authorization Act. It is the one piece of legislation that has not failed to pass in that timeframe, and there is a very good reason for that: It is enormously important, and it is our opportunity to show those men and women who serve in the military that we support them, we support what they do, and we are going to make sure that they have all that they need to carry out the missions that we ask them to do.

One of the reasons that we have always been able to be successful on this is because of the very strong bipartisan tradition of our committee. We have worked with various chairmen and ranking members across the aisle for all of those years and really made sure that we worked together, regardless of who was in the majority, to produce a product that we can be proud of--and we have.

On that measure, as we have moved in the majority this year, my staff and I have worked very hard with the ranking member and with all the members of the committee and their staffs to maintain that bipartisan tradition.

When we had the bill in committee, we had a large number of proposals, which I will read to you.

There were 736 proposals from Republicans, 889 from Democrats. We put into our bill 53 percent of the Republican requests and 52 percent of the Democratic requests

In amendments, there were more Democratic amendments in committee, 266 to 248 for the Republicans, but, still, we accepted 57 percent of the Republican amendments.

On the floor, there were a lot more amendments from Democrats, 480 to 201, but, again, we accepted 50 percent of the Republican amendments.

My staff and I and other members, personally, on a large number of issues, most notably on nuclear issues--Mr. Turner, who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, was concerned that we weren't working together properly on a number of nuclear issues. There were 10 or 12 or more. I reached out to him. We worked together, and we resolved half of them, because that is what we do. This is a very strong bill that everybody on this floor should feel proud to vote for.

Now, there are a couple of issues, but the biggest thing is remember what is in this bill. Once again, we give a very high pay raise to the men and women who serve, 3.1 percent pay raise.

We have also, through the amendment process, included a priority that has over 300 cosponsors in the House, and that is Joe Wilson's bill to finally eliminate the offset that cuts the amount of money that goes to widows of men and women who have passed away in the military. This is the bill to eliminate that offset. There is a lot in this bill that we can be proud of.

Now, the issues that we have had disagreement on, I understand, but we always have disagreements. It is a large bill. I don't like everything in this bill. I don't think anybody does, but we cannot forget the central mission of this bill: to support the men and women who serve the military and to make sure that we have a strong national security.

The number one issue is how much money we spend.

Let me just say--and I think there is bipartisan agreement on this-- we need a budget caps deal. A continuing resolution is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable for the entire discretionary budget, and it is certainly unacceptable for the Department of Defense, which can't simply keep doing what it has been doing. There are always programs they need to get rid of and new programs they need to create. We need to get a deal on that. But the number that we marked to, $733 billion, was the number that the Pentagon planned for for over a year.

After we got the last budget deal to get $716 billion, the Pentagon planned on what their next year's budget would be, and the President and the Pentagon put together a $733 billion budget for over a year. But then, at the end of last year, the President felt that number was too high.

By the way, I think I might agree with him. I think there are greater efficiencies to get out of the Pentagon.

So he said it ought to be cut by 5 percent; it ought to be $700 billion. A number of people protested that, went to the Pentagon and said: You can't cut it to 700.

So the President said it can't be 733; it has got to be 700. And then he agreed to 750. That doesn't make a lot of sense. The 733 number is the number that we planned to.

Now, I will agree that there is a robust debate that can be had about that: Should it be 750 or 733? I very strongly support the 733 number. I don't think giving the Pentagon an additional $17 billion at the last minute is fiscally responsible.

I agree with the ranking member, who has said, in the years when we were cutting the defense budget by 20 percent, that wasn't responsible either. I think 733 is responsible, but I can hear arguments for the other side.

What doesn't make sense is to say that, if you don't get 750, somehow 733 is so bad that we have to vote against it. That simply doesn't make sense. 733 is the largest amount of money we have ever spent on the Pentagon. It more than funds our national security needs.

I believe this is a very strong bill. We will debate many other issues. When we get done, I hope we can uphold that bipartisan tradition and show that we support national security and we support the men and women who are putting their lives on the line for our country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, June 13, 2019.

Hon. Adam Smith,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2020. There are certain provisions in the legislation which

fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on House

Administration.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration, the Committee is

willing to waive its right to sequential referral. This is

done with the understanding that the Committee on House

Administration's jurisdictional interests over this and

similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In

addition, the Committee reserves its right to seek conferees

on any provisions within its jurisdiction which are

considered in a House-Senate conference and requests your

support if such a request is made.

I would appreciate your response confirming this

understanding with respect to H.R. 2500 and ask that a copy

of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your

committee report on the bill and in the Congressional Record

during consideration of the bill on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Zoe Lofgren,

Chairperson.

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

Mr. Chair, I will just say quickly that I completely agree with the ranking member. The question is, does this bill adequately support our national security?

I don't think that is even debatable. There is no question that at $733 billion, with all the bipartisan provisions that we put in there, this bill more than adequately supports our troops and supports our national security.

That is why I think it is so wrong that even in committee, the Republicans have decided to oppose it. It does more than adequately support.

Now, there are things we disagree with, certainly, but I totally agree with that formulation. If you believe this bill at least adequately, I think more than adequately, supports it, you ought to vote for it.

The only comment I will make on the floor amendments is we submitted 480 on the Democratic side, the Republicans submitted 201. So, yes, there are going to be more Democratic amendments, because we, I guess, are a little bit more prolific in that regard, but there is not a partisan effort in that.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who is the chair of the Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

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

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

I would simply note that, in last year's NDAA, when the Republicans were in charge, they cut $751 million from the personnel account, and then the President, 6 months after that, took another $1 billion out of the personnel account to fund his wall.

So, in last year's NDAA, which all of them enthusiastically supported, the personnel account was cut by $1.7 billion. We do not simply rubber-stamp the President's request and never have. What we are doing this year is perfectly in keeping with past history.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the chair of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

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

It is a unique way of looking at the world to describe a nation that has literally thousands of nuclear weapons as unilaterally disarming. I assure the public, we are not doing that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), who is a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Chair, I am the only remaining speaker at this point, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker, and then I will be prepared to close.

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

Mr. Chair, I would start on a note of agreement. I stand by the comments I made in 2016: Voting against the defense bill doesn't mean you don't support the troops.

Now, it is interesting, as we go back to the transcript from 2016, the number of folks on their side of the aisle who said the exact opposite, who rather passionately said we were betraying our country by not supporting the bill. I didn't agree with that then, and I don't agree with it now.

But the only partisanship that is going on on this floor is coming 100 percent from the Republican Party. I appreciate the gentleman's words, and I worked very well with him as the ranking member. I continue to work well with him. But on the statement about how the Republican side of the aisle stands ready to work with us to make this bill better, I have seen no evidence of that.

Talking about amendments on the floor, the decision to oppose this bill was made in committee before we even got to the floor, and what we are hearing is a whole series of excuses for why they are opposing the bill.

It is very simple and straightforward why they are opposing the bill: pure partisanship. They keep talking about the number of times the Democrats voted with them and how this is different, yet the difference is the Republican Party has decided that, if it is not their defense bill 100 percent, they will not vote for it, and then they will stand up and accuse us of being partisan.

The reason I cite all of those numbers is that all of the outreach and effort we did to make this bill bipartisan, they did not reach back. This is pure partisanship: If we are in charge, they are not going to support it to try to make us look bad.

And the to-ing and fro-ing matters, because that is what guts the bipartisanship. If they will not even try to work with us if they are not in charge, that is the definition of partisanship, and it jeopardizes 58 years of history.

I am not going to give up; I am going to keep trying to reach out and keep trying to work with them. But, please, for those of you watching this, understand the only partisan thing going on here is, if the Republicans aren't in charge, they are not going to vote for it. And I will pick just a couple of examples.

We heard that we have taken a hatchet to the nuclear budget, so I am sure you are wondering how much we have cut the nuclear budget by. Well, we have increased it by 4 percent. That is taking a hatchet to it?

We are engaged, believe it or not, in unilateral disarmament on the floor of this House as we increase the amount of money that we spend on nuclear weapons by 4 percent, as we fully fund the B-21 bomber, the Columbia-class nuclear submarine, the LRSO, and the modernization of our nuclear weapons force. All of these arguments are nonsense.

Going back to the personnel argument, they cut the personnel account by more than we did because they didn't agree with the President.

All of these arguments are pure partisanship, and nothing drives this point home more clearly than the $733 billion.

Now, I can't say it any better than the majority leader said it, but the quote from General Dunford in January of 2017. Well, if that is the case, why did Chairman Thornberry--I am sorry; that is the way I always think of him--write an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in November of 2018 insisting that we had to have $733 billion?

If we had said $750 billion, they would be on the floor saying, ``Not enough. It has got to be $775 billion,'' because that is the partisanship.

This is a really important policy point. These numbers also matter, because accountability at the Pentagon matters. I would submit to you that this bill doesn't just maintain the bipartisan tradition; with Democrats working on this bill, this bill is better for national security because we don't believe in sending a blank check to the Pentagon, and sending a blank check to the Pentagon is not in the best interest of our troops or our national security.

Now, Mr. Thornberry is the best person working on reforming our procurement system to try and increase efficiency, and I support him in that effort. But if you try to reform a system and make it more efficient but then say, ``You know what,'' at the last minute, ``here is another $17 billion,'' the people are not going to get the message. They are going to say, ``Accountability? You don't want accountability. You are going to give us more money no matter what we do,'' which is what we have done for far too long.

So, yes, we have accountability in this bill, but you have not heard a single good reason to oppose this, other than pure partisanship. And it is a brilliant way of doing things.

As a friend of mine said a long time ago, when you are in an argument with someone who is unreasonable, it is hard not to sound unreasonable.

It is brilliant. Just vote against the bill and say it is partisan; okay?

Partisan is when you ignore the other side. And, my goodness, the people behind me, I mean, I have worked on it, but nobody has worked on it more than my staff and, frankly, the minority party staff. If you could see the hours that we spent working with Republicans to get to ``good'' on a variety of different amendments, you would laugh out loud at the partisanship claim.

And I think this is important. I think if the minority party, if the Republican Party, cannot work with us unless they are in charge, then we are not going to get to a bipartisan place.

And again, we talk about how we cut the President's budget. It was the President who tweeted out in November that $733 billion was too much. That is what the President said.

So as the majority leader said, we took your number, and after we took your number, you said we are being partisan. That is absurd.

This is a good bill that protects our country. Every Member of this body should be proud to vote for it.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This is an amendment that was actually adopted at the committee level, but there was a technical problem with it which we couldn't get corrected by UC, so we are re-debating it on the House floor. I think it is appropriate.

Last year, the Trump administration decided to stop reporting on civilian casualties that were caused by our raids. This amendment reinstates that and requires the Director of National Intelligence to report to us on civilian casualties that have resulted in raids that we have done outside of existing combat zones.

We are engaged in many military operations, which we have read about, in places like Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. We think it is appropriate to keep statistics on how effective those raids have been, and one of those measures of effectiveness is the number of civilian casualties that are included in that.

That is what this amendment does. We have gotten the support of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff, to do this for both DOD operations and intelligence operations.

I think it is an important transparency measure that will help us better understand the effects of our military policy.

And, I guess, the final thing I would say on this is it is part of an underlying theme. One of the other things that the minority party doesn't like about our bill is that, again, we want to hold the Pentagon accountable. We think Congress actually has a role in defense policy and we shouldn't simply turn it over to the Pentagon.

For us to know what is going on with this will inform our decisions as we attempt to exercise legitimate and effective oversight of Pentagon operations.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would simply say that there are reporting requirements; there are not comprehensive reporting requirements. And that is the purpose of this amendment, to make sure we report everything and so that we have all of the information that is available to us.

And, I guess, to a certain extent, if the opposition feels like it is already being done, then why not do it effectively and efficiently. Regrettably, DOD is not in charge of all of the operations involved here.

The Director of National Intelligence would take into account everything we are doing and make sure that we have an accurate picture of that.

Again, I urge support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just a couple of quick points: First of all, we did not bypass the committee of jurisdiction. We were in constant consultation with the Intelligence Committee, with their staff, and we had that conversation and worked with them to get this result.

We did not bypass them. In fact, we got a waiver from the Intelligence Committee to have this amendment before our committee.

Our committee takes jurisdiction that this bill has a number of provisions in it, including one on which I worked very closely with the gentlewoman from New York, that has jurisdiction within the intelligence community. We include in this bill items that have their jurisdiction, but we worked with them and in careful consultation.

I really don't think it is a lot to ask of our national intelligence to look at the very important issue of how our military action, regardless of who is doing it, impacting casualties, both civilian and otherwise.

That is all this amendment does. I think that it is something that we should be doing, regardless, and it is information that will be valuable to this House.

Mr. Chair, I would urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 476, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers on this first en bloc. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an additional speaker. I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I urge support for the en bloc package.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this is a very important issue and something that our committee worked on over a long stretch of time on export controls. We made very carefully thought-out reforms in that process.

The process was a nightmare. Dual-use was the big problem. We could have, just as an example, a bolt that happened to go into a piece of military equipment. If it was to be put in something else, it was subject to this far more aggressive export control thing. But we fixed all of that.

What the gentlewoman is trying to prevent is stepping way over the line here and allowing the export of things that really are clearly within the military use concern. We covered what wasn't. This goes beyond that and undermines our ability to make sure that we are not giving potential adversaries access to weapons that can jeopardize our national security.

I do think we need to take this step to make sure that the Trump administration doesn't go beyond what we worked out. I realize this word is being overused, but we did work this out in a bipartisan way. With the chairman's help, we included this in the National Defense Act a few years ago. That was helpful.

This goes too far by the President. I think this amendment is perfectly appropriate.

Madam Chair, I strongly support this amendment.

The documents that the gentleman just pointed to don't even begin to scratch the surface of addressing the issue that the gentlewoman is raising. Those are very broad documents about where the Defense Department spends its money.

And I am sure they mention in there--actually, I am not sure. They might mention in there exactly how much money they spend on overseas bases.

Actually, I would be surprised if they outline all the overseas bases we have and what their purpose is, and that is what this amendment calls for. Not the broad strategy, but really how many bases do we have, how much money are we spending, and what do they all contribute to that national security policy.

I have read through those documents. They do not have that type of detail. Yes, they point out, for instance, here is why we are in all the places that we are--in Asia, for instance--as we are trying to defend it, but they don't go through all the bases and say why this particular place, that particular place.

We are overseas in a lot of places that many people are not aware of. It is not just the big ones that we are all aware of that would be contained in that. There are a lot of other places where we own property and maintain bases.

And the gentlewoman is also correct that the inability of the Pentagon to audit--in fact, one of the things that the audit found is that the Pentagon doesn't actually know all of the property that they own--or they can't document it, at any rate.

So getting this piece of it documented would be helpful and would begin to answer the question: Is that money well spent? Is that even advancing the policy that is outlined in all of those documents?

So I think this is necessary, appropriate, and will be helpful in getting us to a more efficient defense budget.

And, again, that is a major difference in our approach from the minority. We don't want to just give the Pentagon money. We want to make sure that they are accountable and spending it well.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, which I am offering as the designee for the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Madam Chair, this amendment is very straightforward.

Currently, all Members of Congress are prohibited from having contracts with the Federal Government, either way. In other words, if you are a Member of Congress, you own something, you can't lease it to the government, rent it to the government.

Similarly, you cannot rent or lease something from the government for, I think, obvious reasons. As Members of Congress, we could potentially have undue influence. We could get a deal that other Members of the public could not get. Therefore, we would have an unfair advantage and be using our position as elected officials to enrich ourselves, which is supposed to be prohibited.

This amendment is very straightforward. It adds the President, the Vice President, and Cabinet members to that list of people who cannot contract with the Federal Government, again, either the Federal Government leasing something to us or we leasing something back to the Federal Government that is owned, in this case, by the President, the Vice President, and members of the Cabinet.

Because, again, particularly in the executive branch, they would actually have, in many ways, more control over this than a Member of Congress, who does not have the power over the assets that the President, the Vice President, and Cabinet members would.

It prohibits them from doing that so that there are no ethical problems, so the President, Vice President, and Cabinet members cannot profit off of being in the office that they are in. This is part of the way we maintain a transparent and ethical government.

I think it is a good amendment that will improve the ethics of our government, and I urge all Members to vote in favor.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This doesn't require someone to commit a crime. It requires you to divest of your interest if you move into this position, something which, by the way, all Members of Congress have to do.

We are not permitted to have outside income over what we have as a Member of Congress. So if you are elected to Congress and you have another job, you have to leave that job; you have to let go of a particular business interest. That is part of public service.

It does not require them to be criminalized. That is like saying having a law against taking bribes is criminalizing the elected official. Now, there is actually something you can do: Don't take the bribe, and you will be okay.

As far as our ``obsession'' with the President, I couldn't help but laugh at the statement, ``instead of doing the hard work of governing.''

I am counting how many hours I have slept over the course of the last month-and-a-half as we have worked to put together a nearly 2200-page bill that fully funds the Defense Department--sorry, in my opinion, fully funds the Defense Department--and all the amendments.

Let me assure you, we are capable of doing both. We are capable of doing the hard work of government and actually trying to make sure that our elected officials are at least passingly ethical so that the American public doesn't think what they already think, which

is that too many people get elected simply to enrich themselves.

This is not something new. We have a long list of ethics laws that restrict what you can do as an elected official or a member of government. I would hope that the gentleman is not suggesting that we shouldn't have that because it is somehow inconvenient.

I think it is incredibly important that we have ethical standards, that we make sure that elected officials are not able to enrich themselves based on being in the elected position that they are in.

That is all this amendment does. It is targeting good government, which is part of our job.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I don't know where the gentleman was over the course of the last month when we passed 10 appropriations bills and took hundreds of votes on the substantive business of funding the government. That is not a waste of time.

I realize the Senate has decided that they are not going to do it, but it is our job to pass appropriations bills. That is what we did for the last month-plus.

We are now working on the defense bill. I would trust the gentleman wouldn't think of that as a waste of time. It is incredibly important.

We have passed an entire rewrite of the ethics laws for the United States House of Representatives. Whether you support it or not, it is certainly not a waste of time.

We have passed countless other bills and important pieces of legislation.

The Senate hasn't been doing much. I understand its rules are more complicated, so I am sympathetic, but we are working on the substantive ability to govern. We are doing it, even if the gentleman doesn't agree with the bills.

This is where bipartisanship becomes difficult because as we do that, to have someone stand up and say that is not what government is supposed to be doing, I mean, what are we doing here? That is what we have been doing.

Part of that should also be to have an ethical government; ethical elected Members of Congress; and ethical Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Cabinet members.

As I have said, there are a bunch of rules governing that. This is one more that I think would help to make it appropriate.

Madam Chair, I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 476, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chair, I don't have any speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I don't have any speakers. We have been doing so many votes on the House floor that it appears we have worn down the Members of Congress. We don't have as many people over here to speak as we normally do on our en bloc packages.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Chairman Smith and the members of the Armed Services Committee for the work they have put into developing this product over the course of the year. We have a number of new members on the committee, and I continue to be impressed with the seriousness with which they take their task, with the different insights based on their background and perspective. It has been very helpful.

I also want to thank the staff. As you can tell, Mr. Chairman, from the size of the bill, as well as the number of amendments filed throughout the process, it is a big job, and a limited number of staff have worked very hard to get us to this point.

I think maybe it is helpful to just step back for a second and talk about what this bill is about.

The Preamble of the Constitution says that one of the reasons we have a government is to provide for the common defense, but Article I, Section 8 goes into specifics by putting the responsibility on Congress' shoulders to raise and support, provide and maintain the military forces for the United States.

How well we do or do not do that job that the Constitution puts on us has real consequences. Literally, the life and death of the men and women who serve are at stake, as well as the security, the safety, and the well-being of men and women throughout the country. It is a significant responsibility, and, again, the Constitution says it is ours.

Now, as the chairman noted, for 58 straight years, one of the ways we have fulfilled that responsibility under the Constitution has been to pass, and a President of both parties has signed, a National Defense Authorization Act. Fifty-eight straight years that has occurred. And most of that time, at least certainly in my experience over the last 25 years, it has been done on a bipartisan basis.

For example, in last year's bill, the committee reported the bill favorably by a vote of 60-1. The year before, it was 60-1. The year before that, it was 60-2. The year before that, it was 60-2. Last year, on final passage, the vote on this floor was 351-66. The year before that, it was 344-81.

I could go on, but the point is, that there has been strong bipartisan support in fulfilling that essential responsibility under the Constitution.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, this year is different. This year, the bill was reported out of committee by a vote of 33-24, and the reasons were serious, substantive disagreements with provisions that were in the bill.

As the chairman, himself, said in, I believe, 2016: ``There is nothing shameful about making a legitimate policy choice to oppose the NDAA or any other bill. . . . Regardless of whether we support the NDAA or not, we all support the brave men and women of our military who defend the country.''

I think the chairman was right then, and I think the statement is still true today.

When the bill came out of committee, some of us had a hard time deciding whether to support it or not because there are many good elements in this bill. And it is absolutely true that, from the ground up, a number of Republicans, as well as Democrats, have worked together to contribute to this bill. My view was that there were some adjustments that could be made that would enable most Members to support it.

Unfortunately, what has happened, as the bill now has come out of the Rules Committee, is, in my view, at least, unprecedented.

First, the rule self-executes an amendment that has a number of serious issues. Now, a lot of them have serious support, but shouldn't they be on the floor so that we can talk about them, perhaps discuss offsets on some very challenging issues that we have grappled with over the years?

But then when it comes to other amendments, I believe that of the 439 made in order, 340 of them are Democratic-sponsored, 98 are Republican. That is not the way it has been before.

Last year, more Democratic amendments were made in order on the floor than Republican amendments. The year before, it was just about exactly even. So we see the bill drifting in a particular direction.

Most concerning, I think, in many respects, is, of the contested amendments--in other words, of those amendments about which there is a difference and there will be a debate and probably a vote--63 of them are sponsored by Democrats.

I believe there is just one sponsored by Republicans, Mr. Turner's on low yield. I don't believe there is another contested amendment that the rule has made in order.

Now, the problem with that, Mr. Chairman, is there is virtually no opportunity to improve the bill.

I think Chairman Smith made a very important point in the Rules Committee yesterday. He said it is with this bipartisan input and support, every step in the process that results in a better bill. And I think we have proven that time and time again.

Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing today.

We have made a lot of progress in the last 2 years. As most Members know, starting in 2011, defense spending was cut in real terms about 20 percent. Both Republicans and Democrats share responsibility for that, by the way. And both Democrats and Republicans share responsibility for making up about half of that amount in the last 2 years, but we haven't finished the job.

As a matter of fact, a study in the Military Times earlier this year found that military aviation accidents have increased 40 percent over the past 5 years, but military aviation accident deaths hit a 6-year high in 2018.

The point is, we made a good start at fixing our problems, but we have not finished the job. And that is part of the reason that some of us are so concerned about cutting the administration's request by $17 billion, to fail to keep that momentum on fixing our readiness, on modernization, on research in key areas, all of the different categories in making sure that we continue to improve the situation for our troops.

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of good things in this bill, but they can't seem

to overcome the ways in which this bill takes steps backwards.

I don't know. There are lots of things we could talk about. The bottom line, however, is there is only one thing that matters: does this bill adequately support our troops and American national security? There is really nothing else, no other criteria, that matters the way that that fundamental question does.

I am concerned that this bill does not meet that standard. I know a number of my colleagues are concerned about that as well.

We have hopes that at some point in the process, the bill will actually come closer to adequately supporting our troops and American national security, but it is not there yet. And I have concerns, given what the Rules Committee has done, that it will be hard to do so on this floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), a general new to the committee, but not new to national security.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the majority leader. I know from some personal experience it is certainly not easy to hold your side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle together to have the sort of votes like we had--351, 349, and so forth--to pass this bill.

That is part of the reason I began my remarks by pointing out this is different. I am not sure that great Democrats of the past--Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy--would recognize this defense bill that is before us, much less the amendments that we see coming down the pike.

I just want to emphasize two points, briefly:

One, is we have lots of quotes being thrown around here about what General Dunford has said or what he has not said. I don't have his words from a transcript, but what I do have is Defense News, June 13, 2017, where he says, directly: ``We now know that continued growth in the base budget of at least 3 percent above inflation is the floor necessary to preserve just the competitive advantage we have today, and we can't assume our adversaries will remain still.''

Consistent testimony from Dunford, Mattis, Shanahan, et cetera, is that the floor is 3 percent, and I think statements to the contrary do not reflect his view.

Secondly, the majority leader said something like: Loyalty to the President over loyalty to our troops.

I want to quote back Chairman Smith's comments that I mentioned earlier, and expand a bit.

Chairman Smith said, when he voted against the bill on the floor: ``There is nothing shameful about making a legitimate policy choice to oppose the NDAA or any other bill. But it is hypocritical and the height of shameless partisan pandering for him''--and he was referring to Speaker Boehner--``to now claim that a vote against the NDAA is a vote against the troops. It is not. Regardless of whether you support the NDAA or not, we all support the brave men and women of the military who defend this country.''

I think this side of the aisle, we have nothing to apologize for in our support of the troops and American national security. We want a better product, and I hope that at some point we will get it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the chairman if he has only one more speaker remaining.

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

I would simply emphasize, as the gentleman from Florida just did, the strong desire of Members on this side of the aisle is to continue to work constructively with anyone who wants to work with us to help improve this bill so that it strengthens America's national security and does not take steps backwards in any critical area.

As was pointed out earlier, the body across the Capitol was able to do that with a very strong vote of 86-8 just 2 weeks ago. I think that ought to be our model. I think that this bill, if it moves in that direction, will gain the support of a number of Members here.

But it is the real substantive concerns about what is in this bill, as well as the lack of the ability to have amendments to improve the bill, that has so many Members on this side of the aisle concerned.

Back to my original point: None of this to-ing and fro-ing matters. What matters is does it support our troops and improve America's national security. We may have different judgments, but that is the only criteria that matters. It is about them, and it is about the country, and that will continue to be our guiding standard.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Chair, I have no further requests on this en bloc package.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not completely sure I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Chairman, I only have myself to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say my view is that, if a servicemember is qualified and can do the job without some sort of special accommodation, then we ought to take advantage of that member's service.

I note that Secretary Mattis has testified: ``It is a bedrock principle of the Department of Defense that any eligible individual who can meet the high standards for military service without special accommodations should be permitted to serve.''

That is what I believe. I have read the gentlewoman's amendment. It is not clear to me that her amendment is in violation of that statement or my belief.

I heard and listened clearly to the concerns Mrs. Hartzler stated, so maybe we need to continue, as we move forward, to look at whether there are other consequences to the language. But it seems to me the standard that Secretary Mattis has set out--if you can do the job, you ought to be able to do the job--that is the right one.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, this is the third year in a row, I believe, we have had this attempt to require DOD to only buy knives and forks and spoons from a certain supplier.

I opposed it when it was brought by a Republican and I oppose it when it is brought this year as well.

In all 3 years, I have yet to hear a national security justification to dictate where DOD buys its knives and forks and spoons and plates. I have not heard it yet.

At one point, there was a view that certain textiles and food were of such importance to the functioning of our military, that there needed to be restrictions on where they were procured. Again, I have not heard that when it comes to knives and forks.

I will say that adding this mandate will hurt our troops, because the only situation in which DOD would choose other than a domestic supplier would be if it saves money if you can buy knives and forks and spoons cheaper from some other supplier. So that means you are taking away money from ammunition or whatever it is and spending more than you would otherwise need to spend on your plates and knives and forks. I can't tell you how much, probably not a lot, but it takes away money for other vital programs.

The big question I have, Madam Chair, is where does this stop? I admire

all Members who try to support manufacturing in his or her district. That is part of our job as Members of Congress. Got it.

But if we are going to say, ``Okay. The DOD has got to buy their plates and cups and knives and forks and spoons from a domestic supplier in my district,'' what about the napkins? What about the soap to wash your hands? Where does it stop?

I don't think that we want to go down this road without a clear national security reason to limit the suppliers available to DOD.

Computer chips, that is one thing, but knives and forks, that is something else.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Madam Chair, creating domestic jobs in industry after industry is not the primary purpose of the Department of Defense, especially without a national security reason to do so.

What this amendment would do, if it does anything, is to add another category of bureaucracy and burdens that the Department of Defense has got to go through before it decides where it is going to procure its plates and spoons.

This has not been the law since 2006. I think our military folks have been reasonably well fed in the 13 years since this was last part of the law.

Again, the only reason to do it is if the domestic supplier is not cheaper. So it costs money, if it does anything.

Madam Chair, there are lots of important national security issues. Mandating where the Department of Defense gets its plates and spoons and cups and bowls and however else you want to define dinnerware, I do not think, is appropriate, and I urge opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairwoman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I would say the first part of the gentleman's amendment is certainly appropriate. There is no question that DOD did not do what it should in reporting to the national database and there have been instances where that made a difference, tragic instances.

So requiring DOD to report within 3 days, I think, as the gentleman from Virginia said, codifying the current policy, I think makes sense. I hope someday we can get to the point, by the way, where we require State and local governments to report within 3 days as well, because as the study was conducted on DOD's failure to report to the database, it turns out that some State and localities are even worse. So I think we all ought to up our game when it comes to that.

I do want to express some concerns, however, about the second part of the gentleman's amendment. It requires a feasibility study on a military database for military protective orders. If it is a feasibility study about whether it is technically possible to have a database, that is one thing. But it is important for Members to understand that military protective orders are issued by commanders, and do not have any sort of due process that is associated with civilian protective orders or much due process at all.

Now, military members can go and get a civilian protective order with appropriate due process. But right now, a

military protective order by commanders is just issued at the request of the victim or the victim's advocate. There are some opinions that there are even instances where this process has been abused.

I just think we should be careful in treading down a road where we do not provide due process with significant consequences. So as the gentleman noted, there are some related provisions in the Senate bill. I think it would be appropriate to take this measure and look deeper into those consequences, especially to ensure that all servicemembers have due process as well as all servicemembers and civilians have the protection that the gentleman is seeking to achieve.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have no speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, the Trump administration has proposed to abolish the Office of Personnel Management altogether and give the White House control of governmentwide Federal employee policies.

My simple amendment would prohibit that proposed reorganization from being implemented because, as my subcommittee has uncovered, this proposal lacks merit, justification, or even a coherent rationale. That is the opinion of the Government Accountability Office, not just me.

The GAO has testified that OPM's leaders ``have not established outcome-oriented goals, developed a cost-benefit analysis or implementation plans, and have not fully involved or communicated their efforts with the Congress, employees, and other key stakeholders.''

Both Republicans and Democrats on our subcommittee expressed deep skepticism about the so-called plan.

My Republican counterpart in the Senate, Senator James Lankford, said, ``It's hard to get to a determination of how this makes things better.''

I couldn't agree more. OPM's 5,500 employees run programs that serve our Federal Government's 2.7 million active employees.

OPM administers, for example, the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the world and processes the world's largest retirement

program for 2.5 million Federal retirees and their survivors.

It provides human services consulting and regulates the implementation of laws essential to our Nation's merit-based civil service, including the Hatch Act, which prohibits Federal employees from using Federal resources for political and campaign purposes.

It also provides dental, vision, and medical insurance to 8 million Federal employees and their families.

In short, OPM is the agency that serves the people who serve the American people.

On May 21, our subcommittee held a hearing that eviscerated the administration's plan to eliminate OPM. I told Acting Director Weichert at that time that the plan was dead on arrival as submitted and that she needed to start over to find a way to work together on a bipartisan basis to rebuild OPM the right way. She said she would, and I took her at her word. Despite these clear messages and continued oversight, Ms. Weichert failed to live up to her end of the agreement.

Recently, OPM officials announced their intention to lay off or possibly furlough 150 employees because they could not afford to keep them on the payroll, they claimed. That threat was made in spite of the proposed appropriations levels, which are above what would be needed to fill any budget gap.

The administration's inadequate plan to dismantle OPM has been a disaster. After realizing that it cannot prevail on the merits, the administration is now resorting to blackmail.

On June 27, our subcommittee held another hearing to question OPM officials on the lack of documents provided to Congress about the plan to eliminate OPM. At that hearing, OPM admitted they have failed to determine whether actions they are already taking to eliminate OPM are even legal. They could not provide the underlying legal guidance justifying their action.

The language in this simple amendment largely mirrors language already included in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2020 already passed by the House last month.

We have not seen anything, unfortunately, from the administration to convince us that any part of this plan is a good idea and would make our Federal Government more effective and efficient. In fact, GAO has said that the administration's proposal could further hinder the Federal retirement backlog by creating additional uncertainty. That could make it difficult for OPM to plan large-scale changes in its operations.

The Acting Director of OPM and the Deputy Director for Management of OMB was reported as saying that the administration plans ``to play chicken with Congress'' to effectuate its proposal to eliminate OPM.

We must pass this amendment, as we did on the appropriations bill, to send a clear message that threatening Congress is not the way to do business, whether it is with a Republican administration or a Democratic administration.

I urge my colleagues to work with us to ensure that Federal employees are treated with respect and are protected through the OPM process.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides.

Madam Chair, I am prepared to allow my friend to close, and then I will close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I am sad my good friend, who I know shares my concerns, feels the need to oppose an amendment that is designed to prevent a very bad thing from happening that has no rationale, has no supporting documentation, and has threatened Congress with extortion. We will RIF 150 people if you don't do what we want-- even though you don't quite know what we want--by October 1. No one in this body should tolerate that. This amendment needs to pass, as it did in the appropriations bill.

I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairwoman, this amendment is simple, bipartisan, and has the support of leading domestic violence prevention advocates and veteran service organizations.

First of all, I want to thank my friend and colleague from New York, a Republican, Mr. Peter King, for cosponsoring this amendment. Peter is a veteran and a respected voice in national security issues in the House, and his support is appreciated immensely.

Our amendment does two things: First, it codifies existing Department of Defense policy which requires DOD to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System servicemembers who are prohibited from purchasing firearms pursuant to current law.

Again, this provision of the amendment merely codifies existing DOD policy as outlined in the instruction 6400.06 and places no new legal restrictions on access to firearms.

This provision is responsive to the DOD inspector general's report, ``Evaluation of Military Services' Law Enforcement Responses to Domestic Violence Incidents'' within the military.

In that report, the IG found that the DOD has failed consistently to report domestic violence convictions within DOD that would have disqualified a servicemember from purchasing a firearm.

One of the domestic abuses that DOD failed to report to the FBI was Devin Kelley, who entered a house of worship in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in November of 2017, and killed 27 people with guns he should have been prohibited from purchasing under current law.

According to the IG, of the 219 domestic violence cases examined at eight military installations, 201 were found not to comply with at least one of the Defense Department's policies for reporting domestic violence.

In other words, more than 90 percent of the cases were not properly reported. And in four of five cases, 86 percent were not properly reported to the FBI or the NICS. That is a problem because we know NICS works.

According to the FBI, from November 30, 1998, through December 31 of 2018, 206,080 gun purchases were denied based on convictions of domestic violence or protective orders based on domestic violence.

Codifying this reporting requirement gives it more teeth and helps Congress in its oversight of these important public safety measures that protect all of our military and their families.

The second part of the amendment would task DOD with studying the feasibility of creating a database of military protective orders issued in response to domestic violence and reporting such MPOs to NICS or establishing a process by which military judges could issue protective orders in response to domestic violence.

This provision is responsive to the inspector general's report on the investigation of the United States Air Force's failure to submit Devin Kelley's criminal history information to the FBI.

Under current law, a military protective order issued in response to a domestic violence incident does not prohibit an individual from purchasing a firearm. However, a comparable civilian protective order would.

The IG recommended that the Secretary of Defense consider pursuing legislation amending the Gun Control Act to specifically include military protective orders.

The Senate-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019 included a provision which would have mandated that DOD create a mechanism by which military judges could issue protective orders that would trigger prohibitions on firearm purchases in a Republican Senate.

We are sensitive to the concerns about due process and mandates regarding this matter. That is why we have adopted a middle ground that requires DOD to study the feasibility of complying with the IG recommendations and MPOs and the Gun Control Act, as well as to study the feasibility of establishing a system that the Senate NDAA would have established.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, 30 percent of female veterans reported having been a victim of domestic violence within their adult life, and 22 percent say the abuse occurred while on Active Duty. According to the DOD, in more than 30 percent of domestic violence cases--1,100 out of 3,000--where the victim is a member of the military, their spouse is also a member of the military. This amendment is not about protecting civilians only, but about protecting those in uniform especially.

In closing, I want to thank all of the organizations that have endorsed this bipartisan amendment including: the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Futures Without Violence, Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, Service Women's Action Network, and Protect Our Defenders.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the Merit Systems Protection Board is a small but mighty independent federal agency created by Congress to protect the merit system principles and to promote an effective federal workforce free of prohibited personnel practices.

Typically, the Board is led by three presidentially-appointed and Senate confirmed members. However, the term for the last remaining Board member expired on March 1, 2018. That board member already extended his term in a holdover capacity, but was limited by statute to one year extension, meaning the Board has been without even a single Board member since March 2019.

The Office of Special Counsel refers cases to the Board when it suspects a federal agency has performed an unfair or adverse action against a federal employee.

The Board can then temporarily table the agency action while adjudicating the employee's claim.

However, the Board can only table the action or adjudicate it if it has a quorum--or two members. As the Board currently sits, there are no confirmed members, and the Board has been without a quorum since January 7, 2017.

This means that the Board cannot perform any of these actions to protect federal workers from agency actions that OSC deems suspect.

This Amendment would provide urgent, temporary relief to whistleblowers while the Board waits for at least one appointee.

My amendment would delegate temporary authority to the Board's general counsel to stay questionable personnel actions brought by agencies against whistleblowers. Under this provision, the Board could still act on egregious cases of suspected retaliation, even without any board members.

The general counsel's authority would expire when a single Board member is confirmed by the Senate.

This amendment is absolutely necessary to protect federal workers. And, needing this amendment was completely avoidable. Whistleblowers shouldn't be held hostage by the failures of the political system.

This amendment would at a minimum keep the lights on for the Board. The general counsel would be authorized to prevent an agency from taking a retaliatory or prohibited personnel action against those who disclose wrongdoing.

I held a hearing in February of this year to examine the effects on the Board because of the vacancies of two Board members and the potential ramifications if the final member left his post in March.

This hearing followed my attempt to save the Board from going without leadership when the final Board member's term expired.

With Chairman Cummings, I introduced legislation to prevent the Board from having no members. H.R. 1235, the MSPB Temporary Term Extension Act, would have provided a one-time, one-year extension to the final Board member's term. This measure passed the House, but the Senate refused to take it up.

As a result, in June, I introduced H.R. 2530 to amend Title 5 to give the general counsel temporary stay authority, which the Committee on Oversight and Reform voice voted out of Committee.

It is imperative that we preserve the importance and integrity of this vital Board. Passing this amendment means that the Board will be able to resume its work protecting whistleblowers more quickly.

There is a lot at stake. The status quo is untenable.

Federal employees deserve to have their appeals heard by the Board, and employees of the Board deserve to work at a fully functioning agency.

Whistleblowers help hold leaders accountable, and we owe it to them to protect them from retaliation.

Addressing this problem should be a bipartisan concern.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this en bloc package of amendments to H.R. 2500, which includes my simple amendment that would require a report to Congress on those who have received security training from the United States and subsequently been sanctioned for human rights violations or terrorist activities.

Security cooperation programs are a critical tool of U.S. foreign policy, especially as we increasingly rely on partner forces to protect U.S. national security interests.

It is vital that we both thoroughly vet participants in our security cooperation programs, and ensure accountability after such training has been delivered.

If recipients of U.S. security training go on to commit gross violations of human rights or acts of terrorism, then we need to know about it.

My amendment would require the Secretaries of State and Defense to submit to Congress a report on each individual and security force unit that has received U.S. security training and been designated by the United States for human rights violations or terrorist activities at any point during the previous ten years.

This reflection would yield key information helping us to ensure that U.S. security training programs are aligned with American values and that we are applying consistent standards regarding human rights.

That is why I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to this bill and enhance Congress' ability to provide oversight and accountability of U.S. security cooperation programs.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation. It is a good piece of legislation.

I thank Chairman Smith; Ranking Member Thornberry; and my colleague, Mr. Lamborn, for working with our committee. We worked closely with members of the committee on and off to ensure that the bill addresses four priority areas affecting our military.

First, we ask the question: Is the military ready for climate change? It is not. In the last 12 months, severe storms have devastated Marine Corps

Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Tyndall Air Force Base, and Offutt Air Force Base. This NDAA will accelerate and enhance readiness by requiring the Department of Defense to plan for and respond to the threat that climate change poses to military installations and operations.

Second, the bill includes a number of bipartisan provisions aimed at addressing problems associated with the management and oversight of military housing for families.

Third, the bill authorizes additional funding and includes bipartisan provisions to mitigate drinking water contamination resulting from fluorinated compounds used in military installations.

Fourth, the bill continues to uphold the committee's responsibility to conduct oversight of, and provide support for, military training maintenance and infrastructure. For example, the mark authorizes $256.4 billion, an $8.8 billion increase over fiscal year 2019 authorized levels, for operation and maintenance accounts. This includes an additional $834 million to address submarine and surface ship maintenance shortfalls and an additional $309 million for the Air Force weapon systems sustainment accounts. It also includes $11.5 billion for military construction, family housing, and implementation of previous Base Realignment and Closure activities.

This includes $168 million above the budget request for construction projects associated with the European Deterrence Initiative and authorizes 31 additional programs.

Mr. Chair, today I rise in support of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I would like to start by thanking Chairman Smith and the House Armed Services Committee staff who have worked many long nights putting together this year's NDAA. The bill that is before the House is a good bill and I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

As the Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I worked closely with members on and off the committee to ensure the bill addressed three priority areas affecting our military. First, the bill includes a number of bipartisan provisions aimed at addressing problems associated with the management and oversight of military family housing. The bill does the following:

Requires the military services to establish a tenants' bill of rights for residents of privatized military family housing;

Requires the Secretary of Defense to develop an assessment tool to identify and measure health and safety hazards in housing;

Prohibits the use of non-disclosure agreements in connection with entering into, continuing, or terminating a lease for on-base military housing;

Authorizes an additional $140.8 million to hire additional civilian personnel to improve oversight and management of military family housing; and

Creates a public database for complaints related to military housing, requires annual financial audits of randomly selected privatized military family housing, and annual congressional reports on the condition, maintenance, and management of privatized military family housing.

Second, the bill authorizes additional funding and includes bipartisan provisions to mitigate drinking water contamination resulting from fluorinated compounds around military installations:

Prohibits the release of fluorinated firefighting foam (AFFF) at military installations except in cases of emergency response or in limited circumstances;

Requires the Secretary of Navy to complete a new military specification by January 2025 for a fluorine free firefighting agent to be used at all DoD installations and a complete ban on fluorinated foams on military installations by September 2029, or sooner if possible;

Authorizes the National Guard to access Defense Environmental Remediation Account funds, for five years, for the limited purpose of addressing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) exposure and contamination;

Prohibits the use of fluorinated AFFF in training exercises and encourages the Department to ensure adequate training for individuals in regular contact with AFFF about the potential dangers associated with PFAS;

Requires a report on the Department's understanding of best-practices for cleanup and disposal of PFAS;

Provides an additional $121.3 million in environmental restoration accounts for remediation activities related to perfluorinated chemicals in drinking water on or near military installations; and

Authorizes DoD to provide fresh water and treatment of contaminated water for agricultural purposes adjacent to a military installation where water is contaminated due to military activities.

Third, the bill contains a number of sensible provisions requiring the Department of Defense to plan for and respond to the threat that climate change poses to military installations and military operations:

Requires DoD to develop installation master plans that assess current climate vulnerabilities and plan for mitigating the risks;

Limits DoD's ability to spend planning and design funds until it initiates the process of amending the building standards for military construction to ensure that building practices and standards promote energy, climate, and cyber resilience at military installations;

Requires all proposals for military construction projects to consider potential long-term changes in environmental conditions, and increasingly frequent extreme weather events, as well as, industry best-practices to withstand extreme weather events;

Authorizes an additional $40 million for the Department's Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program; and

Directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a climate vulnerability and risk assessment tool to assist in providing standardized risk calculations of climate-related impacts to military installations and capabilities.

Further, the bill also includes important provisions to reform border deployment and ensure funding for our military is spent wisely and as Congress intended, and not on an unnecessary border wall:

It prevents the President from diverting Defense funding to pay for an unnecessary border wall;

Includes a blanket prohibition on funding for the construction of a wall, barrier, or fence along the southern land border;

Prohibits reprogramming of funds into the counter drug account, which has been used by the Administration to do construction along the southern land border;

Does not include the $7.2 billion requested by the Administration to backfill MILCON projects and/or forward fund portions of the wall;

Modifies an authority the DoD uses when deploying active duty personnel to the border to require all support to be reimbursable and require a wavier that the deployment won't affect readiness, the support task aligns with the unit's mission, the task is inherently government and can't be contracted; and

Amends the emergency construction authority (10 USC 2808) to limit the total cost of military construction projects undertaken during a national emergency to $500 million, with a further limit of $100 million for construction projects within the United States and would add elements to required congressional notifications.

In addition, the bill continues to uphold the committee's responsibility to conduct oversight of, and provide support for, military training, maintenance, and infrastructure. For example, the mark authorizes $256.4 billion, an $8.8 billion increase over fiscal year 2019 authorized levels, for operation and maintenance accounts. This includes an additional $834 million to address submarine and surface ship maintenance shortfalls and an additional $309 million for Air Force weapon systems sustainment accounts. The mark also included $11.5 billion for military construction, family housing, and implementation of previous Base Realignment and Closure activities. This includes $168.6 million above the budget request for construction projects associated with the European Deterrence Initiative and authorization for 31 additional construction projects valued at over $1 billion, that were not included in the budget request, but that the committee were able to accelerate from the military departments' unfunded priority lists.

Additionally, this year's NDAA funds important priorities at Travis and Beale Air Force Bases in my district. The military construction projects authorized in this bill will support the new KC-46 mission at Travis Air Force Base and will improve resilience and power supply at Beale Air Force Base, enabling it to continue to support intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and multidomain operations.

I'm proud of the funding authorized by, and legislative provisions included in the Readiness mark. I believe the mark ensures Congress fulfills its oversight responsibilities, helps advance our military's near-term readiness goals, and drives the Department to plan for and take action against long-term threats.

I'm also pleased this NDAA includes a 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops and includes the text of my bill, H.R. 2617, the Occupational and Environmental Transparency Health Act. This will require DoD to input any Occupational Environmental Health hazards exposure into servicemembers' records while deployed, so it is tracked throughout their career and into veteran status. It will also require the VA to retroactively update records based on information contained in the Burn Pit Registry, since many veterans' health records do not account for their exposures.

Additional provisions I'm pleased are included in the fiscal year 2020 NDAA are included below, many of which are related to the critical oversight the Strategic Forces Subcommittee is conducting over our nuclear weapons enterprise:

Requires a report from the Secretary of Defense on military-to- military dialogue with foreign countries to reduce the risk of miscalculation, unintended consequences, or accidents that could precipitate a nuclear war;

Prohibits funding for the deployment of new, low-yield nuclear missile warheads;

Clarifies the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's authorities by providing prompt and unfettered access to defense nuclear facilities for independent nuclear oversight;

Facilitates implementation of the Open Skies Treaty and prohibits funding for withdrawal unless Russia is in material breach or DoD and State provide a certification that withdrawal is in the best interest of national security and have consulted with U.S. allies;

Increases funding for Nuclear Command, Control and Communications.

Repeals the requirement to demonstrate plutonium pit production of at a rate of 80 pits per year by 2027, and instead prioritizes producing 30 plutonium pits per year by 2026;

Until the National Nuclear Security Administrator submits an analysis of alternatives with respect to replacing the ICBM W78 warhead, this bill cuts $103 million from the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, cuts $59 million from the related warhead, and fences remaining funding for the warhead;

Requires an independent technical study of the W78 replacement and potential problems; and

Repeals the conventional requirement for the Long Range Stand Off Weapon.

I'm proud of the hard work that's been done to put together a strong National Defense Authorization Act this year, and I urge my colleagues to support the fiscal year 2020 NDAA.

Congratulations, Chairman Smith, on bringing to the floor an excellent bill. I want to also congratulate Mr. Thornberry from Texas, a responsible Member of this Congress, a responsible member of the minority, and a person who has been a strong voice on behalf of national defense.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this year's defense authorization bill. It makes smart, strategic investments in our military to keep America safe and defend our interests overseas, and it reflects core values.

We are proud to fund the Department of Defense. I have been in this body for some 38 years. I have supported every Defense bill. Now, when I say that, very frankly, we have had some political fights back and forth and there have been political votes cast where we thought that there were things being done that shouldn't be done. But I have supported a strong national defense. I supported most of Ronald Reagan's build-up which was, by the way, started by Jimmy Carter.

I have supported making sure that we had weapons we needed and the personnel we needed.

We are proud as Democrats to stand behind our men and women in uniform. As a matter of fact, some of the great victories of democracy have been led by people like Woodrow Wilson in World War I, Franklin Roosevelt in World War II, Harry Truman in Korea, and John Kennedy confronting communism and authoritarianism, the people who want to rule by armed might.

This bill, the first written by a Democratic majority in 8 years, raises military pay by 3.1 percent and recognizes the contribution of our men and women in uniform. It supports a stronger military by prohibiting funding for discrimination against transgender, that denies us the talents and courageous service of patriotic Americans.

Now, that has happened before, and Harry Truman stepped in and said that, no, we are not going to segregate our services. We are not going to discriminate against those of color in our services. He said that in the 1940s, post-World War. And there were some who said that would destroy our military effectiveness. They are saying the same thing about gays and transgender. They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

This bill cuts $17 billion. The chairman, the ranking member, and I had discussions through the years. We need to make sure that we spend our money smartly and not just blindly spend money. We need to make sure that every dollar is spent effectively, but that our national security is not in any way undermined. I believe the savings that have been effected are focused and that we are taking that money and using it for effective items and taking it away from an expensive and ineffective wall on the southern border that the President wants to spend money on.

It also acknowledges the serious national security challenges posed by climate change. Surely, we know how critical to our national security the effects of climate change are showing. We experienced that just the other day here in Washington, D.C.

It requires the Pentagon to develop a plan, along with others in our government, as to how we can confront, effectively and on behalf of our national security, climate change.

This bill also accelerates the closure--long overdue--it is not the American way to hold people without finding out whether they are, in fact, guilty or not. I have been to Guantanamo. Nobody in America ought to talk about how much it costs to incarcerate somebody in America, because it is about one-tenth or one-twentieth of what it is costing us in Guantanamo. You talk about fiscal responsibility.

I am deeply disappointed that my Republican friends are bucking a long tradition. I did not like everything in your Defense bill. I disagreed sincerely with some of the provisions that you put in your Defense bill, and I voted for the Defense bills you offered on this floor because I thought they were in the best interests of our country--not perfect--but in the best interests of our country, of our military, and of our national security.

I am sorry that that is not happening today or tomorrow or Friday when we vote on it. This bill ought to have bipartisan support. It ought to have bipartisan support for our military, and if the situations were reversed, my Republican colleagues would be accusing Democrats of not supporting our national security, not supporting our troops, not supporting the men and women who are put at the point of a spear, in harm's way, many paying the ultimate price. That is what you would have accused us of.

How sad it is that some in this House are choosing loyalty to the President and their party over a common commitment to our troops--tough words, but I think true. Republicans object to this bill because they claim it does not meet their demands for $750 billion. Until March of this year, however, they were demanding exactly the number in this bill. Some on my side of the aisle

think this sum is too high. Mr. Smith, the Speaker, and I urged our colleagues to adopt this number because it was a bipartisan number--not the perfect number.

More than 70 Republican Members out of your 194 wrote to the President citing the same number as their preferred figure for defense investment. That is the number the Pentagon used for the previous year around which it built its budget.

That is what Joseph Dunford--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, said was the number the Pentagon needed ``after scrubbing every account,'' $733 billion. That is the figure we included in this bill. That is the figure that you are prepared to vote against.

Ranking Member Thornberry, who is my friend and whom I respect and whom I have just spoken of, penned an op-ed that President Trump must ``move forward with the $733 billion budget he originally proposed for 2020.''

We took your number, and, yes, there are some things you don't agree with in this bill, but there were things we didn't agree with. Very frankly, there are very few bills that we consider on this floor that I agree with 100 percent. But we are a democratic body. We are a collective, collegial body, and we try to reach consensus.

We took your number. We took the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's number. Indeed, at the same time that Republicans are arguing that $733 billion isn't enough, the White House is calling for a continuing resolution that spends far less. A former Member of this body originally suggested sequester which would devastate our national security and our domestic security.

As Chairman Adam Smith has stated, to claim that $733 billion is an abdication of our responsibility to fund our troops is patently ridiculous and contrary to the representations that have been made on your side of the aisle.

They claim this bill is partisan. That is absurd. The bill includes more than 53 percent of the amendments offered by Republican Members--a higher figure than Democratic amendments in the bill. Chairman Smith's staff worked tirelessly and collegially with Republicans for months to ensure that the defense authorization bill would be bipartisan as this legislation has been historically.

Of course, there are provisions in this bill with which Republicans disagree. I would be shocked if that were not the case. There are probably going to be some provisions in there that I disagree with. That doesn't mean they should vote against this entire bill, however, Mr. Chairman. Democrats supported this bill when we were in the minority over the last 8 years--check the record--even when Republicans forced controversial measures into it because we believed it was important to support our military. We voted for it over serious objections on policy because we viewed it as a must-pass bill.

Where has that bipartisanship on national security gone?

Is it just a strategy to defeat this bill?

I am convinced that we are going to have 218-plus Democrats vote for this bill, Mr. Chairman. I urge my Republican colleagues to reconsider their opposition and vote for their number and put country over party.

To my Democratic colleagues, I say: This is a strong Defense bill, as good as you are going to get. It protects LGBT rights and advances family leave. It loosens the heinous restrictions on transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Opposing this bill means we will be stuck with a Senate version that omits these provisions.

I thank Chairman Smith and members of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work, and I thank the ranking member. I congratulate you both on producing a very strong, very positive bill. You did that together.

Do not abandon your work. I hope that it will pass with resounding support from both sides of the aisle. Our troops in harm's way deserve that affirmation, that trust, that faith, that commitment. Let's not let them down.