Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2500) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

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 Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 476 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 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

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

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 476, providing for consideration of H.R. 2500 under a structured rule. One hour of general debate has been provided, controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Madam Speaker, this rule makes more than 430 amendments in order. I think we broke a record. This bill has the most amendments, I think, ever made in order, and I think it is something that we should be proud of.

These amendments include ideas from both sides. I think that is important. But I have got to tell you that I am especially proud that this rule allows a debate on many truly progressive ideas.

One of these amendments would allow transgender troops their rightful chance to serve in our military without roadblocks from this administration. That shouldn't be a radical idea. Gender shouldn't matter on the battlefield.

Transgender troops have been serving in our military for a very long time. They have willingly put their lives on the line to deploy in combat zones just like all other troops. They have worn the same uniform and have been held to the same standard as everybody else.

But, instead of thanking them, instead of thanking them for their service to our country, this administration wants to prevent them from serving at all.

Out of nowhere, President Trump logged onto Twitter one day and decided to ban transgender people from military service.

This rule will give us a chance to debate an amendment to change that, to reject the President's bigotry.

There is another amendment here that would prevent the President from using the 2001 AUMF to launch an attack on Iran or engage in military hostilities without explicit congressional authorization.

Now, think about this. We were, apparently, moments away from the President launching an attack against Iran--no consultation with Congress at all, no debate on this floor, no thoughtful discussion, not even a vote.

Democrats don't want war with Iran. Most Republicans don't want war with Iran. The American people certainly don't want a war with Iran.

But this President was, apparently, about to use an AUMF passed more than a decade ago to fumble us into another conflict in the Middle East. I am glad the President backed off from bombing Iran, but I am terrified about the lack of thoughtful leadership coming from this Oval Office.

I don't know what kind of mood he will be in when he wakes up tomorrow, whether he will want to go to war with a country or not, but I think we have a constitutional obligation here in Congress to make sure that we play a role as to whether or not we enter into another war as well as preventing another war.

We need to make it clear to this administration that the President cannot use an old AUMF to initiate hostilities against Iran, period. This rule is our chance. There are dozens and dozens of ideas here that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to get debated for a long time and many on our side of the aisle have tried to get debated for a long time. This rule will finally allow us to do that.

As important as they are, the importance of this rule goes beyond just the amendments. There is suspension authority included in here that would allow us to move quickly this week and pass the reauthorization of the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

How could anybody oppose that, Madam Speaker? Recently, we saw 9/11 first responders coming to the Senate and literally begging for Majority Leader McConnell to move the bill.

These people are heroes. They should never have to plead with hat in hand for the resources to help them survive.

The Senate is finally showing a willingness to move on this. So, if we pass this rule, this program could be reauthorized within a matter of days.

Passing this rule would also allow us to quickly take action on the first measure placed on the Consensus Calendar, H.R. 553, as part of the underlying bill.

This calendar was created as part of our bipartisan rules package, passed at the start of the Congress. It is a new procedure designed to expedite consideration of measures with broad bipartisan support.

Congressman Joe Wilson and Congressman John Yarmuth's bill to update the Department of Defense's Survivor Benefit Plan has well over 350 cosponsors.

Clearly, there is a lot of bipartisan support here for this legislation. Let's pass this rule and make sure it gets taken up as quickly as possible this week as part of a must-pass vehicle.

That is what this rule is all about, Madam Speaker: debating ideas and countless progressive amendments--and some amendments, quite frankly, that are very conservative that I am going to fight as hard as I can to defeat.

Moving quickly to reauthorize a program that our 9/11 first responders depend on, I think, is an absolute priority of this majority, and I hope my Republican friends will join with us in supporting this effort.

Allowing an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill to be considered on the floor without delay that benefits widows, I think, is something that hopefully will get broad bipartisan support.

So, if we pass this, we can make sure all of this happens this week.

Madam Speaker, I also want to take a moment and recognize that this underlying NDAA bill would finally confer a service medal honoring the sacrifice of atomic veterans.

It has been a long road getting to this point. The prior three House NDAA bills included similar amendment language, sometimes by near unanimous votes, but it was stripped out of conference every single time. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why.

Radiation-exposed servicemembers risked their lives for our Nation, in secret and at great personal cost. More than three-quarters of atomic veterans have already passed away, many prematurely from health problems directly related to their service.

It is past time to finally recognize their courage and sacrifice, not just with a certificate of recognition but with what they truly deserve: a service medal.

So I hope, by including this language in the base bill, it won't be stripped out as the process continues, and let's give these veterans the recognition that they have earned.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just say this: The underlying bill is a good bill, and Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry, and their staff deserve a lot of credit for this product.

It was a bipartisan process in committee, as we heard last night in the Rules Committee. Many Republican amendments were adopted in the committee process, and I think Chairman Smith, again, and his staff deserve enormous credit for getting us to the point we are at here today.

I will say that I regret very much that the marching orders coming from the leaders of the Republican Conference are that all Republicans should vote against the NDAA bill, a bill that contains a pay increase for our troops, a bill that includes items that will protect and enhance our national security, a bill that will provide all the other things I have just mentioned.

I am sorry that the Republican leaders have decided to turn this into a partisan exercise, but they can do whatever they want.

Our job is to make sure this gets done and it gets moved forward in a timely fashion, and that is what we intend to do.

Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just take issue with the gentleman from Georgia when he talks about this as being a partisan process. From what I understand, in the Armed Services Committee, 142 Republican amendments were accepted, 142.

And the gentleman's facts are a little bit wrong when he says it was a straight party-line vote reporting the bill to the floor, unless Ms. Stefanik and Mr. Bacon have changed parties--I hope they did--because they voted to advance it. Everybody in that committee should have voted to advance it, but they did, and they deserve credit for that.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Republican leadership is telling all their Members, vote ``no'' on the final passage of the bill, and vote ``no'' on the rule, unlike my colleagues on the Republican side when they were in charge, who would routinely ask Democrats who came before the Rules Committee and offered amendments and they would say, if we make your amendment in order, will you vote for the bill?

Well, we didn't ask a single Republican that question last night. And we made 62 Republican amendments in order. There are 94 bipartisan amendments in order, and so we didn't do that.

If this ends up being a partisan vote on the rule, that is the choice of my colleagues on the Republican side. I think there is lots and lots of stuff in here that everybody should support.

Let me just say one other thing about the Consensus Calendar. My friend from Georgia is just beside himself that we are moving forward a bipartisan idea that has over 300 cosponsors, overwhelmingly bipartisan. Oh, it is terrible that you are putting it in the rule. It is terrible, terrible, terrible.

Well, let me say, what happened when they were in charge in the last Congress. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Yarmuth introduced a bill. I think there were 290-plus cosponsors on the bill. My Republican friends couldn't even be bothered last session with giving the bill a hearing. They didn't bring it to the floor for a vote. They could have brought it under suspension. They could have had it as an amendment to something. They could have put it in a rule if they wanted to. They didn't do anything.

And now that we are moving forward an idea that has broad bipartisan support, they can't handle it. They are having a meltdown on the other side of the aisle.

Well, you are obsessed with the process when you should be obsessed with the widows who would benefit from the enactment of this bill. But that is fine. That is fine.

The whole point of the Consensus Calendar was to be able to bring bipartisan ideas that had overwhelming support to move those ideas forward, and we praise Mr. Wilson and praise Mr. Yarmuth for their leadership on this.

But to carry on about that it is on a rule, and not at all be concerned about it becoming law really kind of shows the difference in our priorities.

Let me tell you that one of the reasons why we think it is important to put it on the NDAA bill is because we think is a must-pass piece of legislation. This will go to the Senate. I mean, obviously, there will be a conference report, and there will be back and forth and there will be changes and additions and it will come back. But we know that this bill, if it passes the House is going over to the Senate, whether you like it or not. It is going to the Senate.

If we brought it up here under a suspension, it would die in Mitch McConnell's graveyard, like everything else dies over in the Senate. He doesn't give a damn about this; if he did, he would have done something about it.

So I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, but, quite frankly, I think that they are unfounded; and I think that, quite frankly, this is a rule that deserves the support of not just Democrats but Republicans as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

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

I understand the frustration on the Republican side. They lost an election, and so they are not getting everything they want in terms of policy. Well, elections have consequences, and I will give you an example.

I oppose low-yield nuclear weapons, and I hope that that remains the policy, but we made an amendment in order that would allow them to reverse what was in the bill. I am going to fight to defeat it, but there will be a vote on that, and we will have to live with whatever the outcome is.

The bottom line is that, if it doesn't turn out your way, it doesn't mean the process is somehow partisan. That is what happens when you win elections. You don't win on every policy debate that you decide to engage in.

And let me just say one thing about the process and the procedure, because I think it is important for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to have a little bit of a fact check here.

Our friends like to point out the ratio of amendments, but that is a cherry-picked statistic that doesn't tell the whole story. To date, we have made in order more amendments, overall, than my Republican friends did when they were in charge. We have even made in order more minority amendments, to date, than the Republicans did last Congress.

By this time in the 115th Congress, a total of only 140 amendments were made in order. Of those, 89 were minority amendments. This year, we have made a total of 1,280 amendments in

order. That is nine times as many amendments as my Republican friends made in order at the same point in the last Congress. And we have made in order 256 minority amendments this year, which is more than double the number of minority amendments the Republicans made in order at this point in the 115th Congress.

You want to look at the statistics, there they are. And the bill that we are about to debate, we are making in order the most amendments, ever, of any bill brought to the floor.

Now, I guess we could do better than that, but the bottom line is the most amendments, ever, are being made in order on this NDAA bill--and, by the way, on any bill; not just NDAA, on any bill.

So I know it is frustrating to be in the minority. I was there not too long ago. I know it is frustrating not to win on every vote and to be able to rig every vote as my friends did when they were in charge, but the bottom line is, in this place, the majority, whoever has the most votes, wins. So in terms of the process, I think my friends protest too much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

I regret very much that the gentleman is going to vote against a measure to repeal the widow's tax, and I will just remind him again that, when his party was in control of the Congress, they did nothing on this--nothing--no hearing last session, not a thing.

We had, in our rules package, this item called the Consensus Calendar that said that, when there are measures that have 290 cosponsors or more, where there is broad bipartisan support, that the Speaker will move the bill forward, and in this case, any way she wants to with moving it forward.

The gentleman should be really happy, quite frankly, that it is attached to the NDAA bill because this is a must-pass piece of legislation. It will go to the Senate, and there will be a conference.

I hope my Republican friends have some sway with the Republican leader over there, Mitch McConnell, and would urge him not to try to gut this provision from the final version of the bill. But it will go to conference, and the Senate will have to deal with it.

The reason why I know this is a must-pass bill is because one of the amendments that is in order here is an amendment that was a request to the Rules Committee from Minority Leader McCarthy, an amendment to authorize funding to assist military installations recovering from earthquakes and other natural disasters. I don't think he would be wasting his time trying to put that in a bill that he thinks is going nowhere.

This bill is going to the Senate, and then it is going to be up to my friends on the other side of the aisle to try to help join with us in convincing the Republican leadership in the Senate to stand with the House position on this.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, let me say for the Record, the widows were deprived in the last Congress when my Republican friends were in control. They did nothing.

Madam Speaker, I commend Mr. Wilson and Mr. Yarmuth for their efforts on this and getting broad bipartisan support, but quite frankly, the Republican leadership failed in the last Congress. They didn't do anything, period.

We are going to do something, and we are going to make the widows proud and we are going to move this legislation forward. I hope when we do, that we can all come together and join in a bipartisan moment where we can actually point to something concrete that will help these widows.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield to me, I am happy to respond to him.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I wrote the rule on this, and we intentionally left open how the process would proceed.

We are considering this bill and, therefore, we don't need to consider it twice or three times or four times, and that is why we are shutting the process off.

So we are complying with our rule. That was the intention when we wrote it, and we are keeping our word. We are breaking nothing. We are doing what we promised.

So we are bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor, and, hopefully, it will go to the Senate and become law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Madam Speaker, we are bringing forward legislation to repeal the widow's tax precisely because we have this rules change, this Consensus Calendar. We are bringing it forward, and it is going to be voted on.

The Republicans, who have been in charge for 8 years previously, had done nothing in the last Congress to even hold a hearing, and we are being scolded that we are bringing forward this bill? Give me a break.

In terms of amendments, we have made nine times as many amendments as my Republican friends made in order at the same point last Congress. We have made more minority amendments in order than they did in the same period in the last Congress. In fact, we have more than doubled the number of minority amendments.

So, please, spare me the crocodile tears on the process.

They ran this place in the most closed way possible. We are doing things differently, and we are proud of that.

Madam Speaker, we have already made 439 amendments in order. That is the most for any bill ever. But Christmas is coming early this year, and we have two more. In a moment, I will be offering an amendment to the rule to make in order two additional amendments, one by Representative Dingell and one by Representative Jayapal.

They will bring our total amendments to the bill to 441. That is a new record. We believe this is the most amendments ever made in order to a single bill.

While this isn't technically an open rule, it is a pretty open rule.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McGovern

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, despite the fact that the gentleman refused to yield to me earlier, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) to respond to this.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I reclaim my time, Madam Speaker. Enough.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We are making the most amendments ever in order for any bill that has been brought to this House floor. This is a good process. The underlying bill--the National Defense Authorization Bill--increases pay for our troops, and, as I mentioned earlier, will help repeal the widow's tax. The 9/11 bill is also a part of this package. There is no reason, other than just pure partisanship, to want to oppose this, and if my friends want to oppose it, they can.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that admonition. I promise you, you won't have to repeat that again on my time.

I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts yielding the time.

I had a whole wonderful opening statement planned, Madam Speaker. It was going to be our first time down here on the floor together during a rule.

Janet Rossi, on my team, put together all the great stats and statistics, many of which you heard my friend from Massachusetts reference.

And then, as happens to me so often on the Rules Committee, I show up in a good mood, I show up in a great place, and then folks just poke me in that way that gets me going.

For my friend from Massachusetts to close with the Republicans have turned this into a partisan exercise frustrates me to no end.

If there is one thing I have learned in my 9 years in Congress, Madam Speaker, it is that when it comes to American national security, it never gets turned into a partisan exercise.

I don't know how your election went, Madam Speaker, or what it was that your constituents said to you. Mine talked to me a lot about congressional dysfunction.

``Why can't they get anything done, Rob?''

``Why in the world can't you all get together and cooperate?''

And I always respond with the bill that we are looking at today, the National Defense Authorization Act. I say: In six decades of working, depending on who was in the White House, who was leading the House, who was leading the Senate, six decades of working on National Defense Authorization Acts that need to be passed every single year, how many times do you think we have actually successfully gotten that done together?

You know how that conversation goes, Madam Speaker.

``Rob, I think you guys have gotten it done once in 60 years.''

``Rob, I think it has happened 4 times, maybe 12 times.''

Madam Speaker, you know what I know, which is that, over these decades, every single year, without fail--it does not matter who is in the White House; it does not matter who leads the U.S. House; it does not matter who leads the United States Senate--we come together as a Nation to support our men and women who are standing on the frontlines for us.

So, no, this is not a partisan exercise today, nor should it be from the Republican side of the aisle.

But I am mystified, Madam Speaker, as to why we have taken what should have been this continuation of decade upon decade upon decade of bipartisanship and seemingly gone out of our way, as a new Democratic majority, to make it partisan.

I know the policy isn't. I know the policy isn't. I can go right down the line, man after woman, woman after man, on the Democratic side of the aisle and find patriots who love this country and who will do whatever it takes to defend it. That is the conversation we had in the Rules Committee last night.

But I will take you back to my freshman year in Congress, Madam Speaker. I came in with that rabid class of freshman Republicans, that largest freshman class in American history. You would think, if we were going to find partisanship, we would find it in that class.

We all came in on that big Tea Party wave, folks wanting to shake things up, change things. Do you know what the National Defense Authorization Act looked like coming out of committee that year?

It passed 60-1, Republicans and Democrats standing together. The year after that, 56-5. That is what my freshman year looked like: 60-1, 56- 5, Republicans and Democrats standing together on behalf of national security.

I don't know if you have looked at the vote from the Armed Services Committee, Madam Speaker. I know you are familiar. It was 33-24, straight party-line vote, coming out of committee this year.

In the Rules Committee last night up on the third floor, Madam Speaker, we finished up about midnight. I had the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee there talking about all the things that they agree on as it comes to national security, yet, to my friend from Massachusetts' point, the marching orders came down from somewhere that prevented them from doing what we have always done, and that is report a bill in a bipartisan fashion.

It has nothing to do with who leads this Congress, Madam Speaker.

About 12 years ago now, when the very first woman to ever hold the Speaker's chair took over--that would be 2007, Madam Speaker--we didn't bring the bill to the floor under a rule in a partisan fashion. We brought the bill to the floor under suspension.

Madam Speaker, that very first bill that was passed in the Pelosi Speakership passed 369-46 on the floor of the House; 369-46. Most of the no votes were Democrats voting against the new

Democratic Speaker of the House and the national security bill; 369-46.

The year after that, the last year of the new Speakership, the year right before I came, it passed 341-48.

Madam Speaker, I go through these big numbers to make the point that it didn't have to be this way. We went out of our way, it seems, as an institution, to divide on national security. I will just give you a few of those examples.

There are 439 amendments made in order, as my friend from Massachusetts pointed out, and I think we should celebrate that. But again, there were 683 amendments offered, so 250 Members were shut out.

Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity, under the new Consensus Calendar that my friend from Massachusetts referenced, to bring bipartisan legislation to the floor.

For folks who haven't been following that, the only way to get to the House floor is to have a committee report your bill. If committees don't report your bill, you can't get to the House floor unless you end up on the suspension calendar.

This new majority, this new Democratic majority, changed the rules in what I think is an amazingly positive and productive way. What they said is, if you bring together enough Democrats and Republicans to support your bill, we are going to have to give you a special pathway to the House floor for those consensus ideas that we want to celebrate together as an institution.

Madam Speaker, my friend, Joe Wilson from South Carolina has such a bill. It is a bill to support the widows and widowers of our fallen servicemen and women. He has worked this bill with my friend from Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, and this is the very first bill to have achieved, again, this new level of excellence that the new majority laid out. If you can bring people together we will give you a special pathway to the House floor. You get a vote on your bill.

I might point out that my friend from California, Ms. Lofgren, did this very same thing. She did it on a piece of immigration legislation that I am a cosponsor of. She put together the requisite number of Republicans and Democrats, and her bill is coming to the floor, too.

Now, her bill is coming to the floor today on suspension, stand- alone, up-or-down vote to allow Republicans and Democrats to come together and support that idea.

My friend, Mr. Wilson's bill, without his knowledge, without his consultation, without his input, has been tucked into this rule, this partisan rule, this passed-by-party-line-vote rule, to be self-enacted into the underlying legislation.

I expressed my frustration to the chairman last night; that so often we fail in ways that meet the very low expectations of our constituents. This was a wonderful, positive change that Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic majority brought to this institution. Madam Speaker, it is a change that I hope will be a lasting change. It is a change that I hope will persist no matter who sits in the Speaker's chair over the next decade upon decade.

But our very first opportunity to use it, we moved it from its design, which was to be an opportunity to celebrate those things that bring us together, those hard nuts that we figured out a way to crack together, and we have turned it into yet another exercise in ``gotcha'' partisan politics.

The men and women who will be served by this legislation deserve better than that. The men and women who serve in this institution deserve better than that. And when the new Democratic majority was sworn in on the first day of this Congress, they promised the American people better than that.

Madam Speaker, today won't be the last word on this issue; but it is the first word, and it is an unfortunate one.

I hope that my colleagues will be cognizant of this mistake that they have made, and I hope that they will correct it before it is too late.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for that second admonition. I did say you wouldn't have to use it again on my side of the aisle. I can commit to you that you still will not have to issue one on our side of the aisle.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I have become accustomed to your gentle gavel in the Budget Committee, and I appreciate its gentleness here on the floor, as well.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), whose bill you have been so instrumental in, as well.

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

You see the challenges that we are confronted with here. My friend from Massachusetts is telling my friend from South Carolina how my friend from South Carolina should get his bill to the United States Senate. There is no one who has worked harder on this issue than Mr. Wilson has. There is no one whose heart is in this issue more than Mr. Wilson's is.

I hope you listened carefully to his heartfelt words, because the key point that he made is that this really wonderful, bipartisan creation of the new Democratic majority, this Consensus Calendar, if we pass the rule today will be specifically turned off specifically for Mr. Wilson's bill.

The new majority can play whatever partisan games they want to, I wish they wouldn't, but they can, with the underlying bill by stuffing in self-enacting amendments, by adding amendments after the fact, all the games that majorities sometimes play, but the new rules that you voted for, Madam Speaker, that my friend from Massachusetts brags about on his website, rightfully so, because there were important changes in those rules, the very first time we have an opportunity to utilize those rules, Mr. Wilson's bill was ripened for consideration before the House this week, it is not simply that folks have stolen his language and tucked it into this partisan underlying piece of legislation, they have specifically in the rule today prohibited him from availing himself, and by himself, I mean hundreds of our colleagues and thousands of widows that they represent, from availing themselves of the new tool created by the new House majority this year.

I do not value the new majority's use of partisan tools in the NDAA, but I understand that is the right of a new majority.

My friend from Massachusetts is exactly right. When you lose elections, losing elections has consequences, but when you pass rules, passing rules has consequences, too.

I am going to be fascinated by what happens here in about an hour and a half when the members of the new majority are confronted with an opportunity to turn off the new bipartisan reforms they just codified in the House rules 6 months ago.

This should have been a day of celebrating a positive new change from a new administration, and instead, it is a day of playing politics with families that have already given much too much to the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts is right. We have made a lot of amendments in order in this bill today, but in the absence of an open rule, we are never able to consider all of the ideas.

One of the ideas we have not had a chance to consider is whether or not we should be doing business through the Department of Defense with companies that have a direct or indirect subsidiary company that is under the control of the Chinese Government or the Communist Party.

The ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Thornberry, has such an amendment. If we defeat the previous question, Madam Speaker, I will offer that amendment, which does exactly that. It prohibits the Department of Defense from contracting with any company that is a direct or indirect subsidiary of a company in which the Chinese Government or the Chinese Communist Party has a controlling interest.

Now, on the list of things I would put on the common bipartisan list of ideas,

not doing business with communist China would be one. We have seen that over and over again. We are in the midst right now of ripping out security cameras all across this country manufactured by the Chinese as a result of a prohibition in last year's National Defense Authorization Act.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be included immediately prior to the previous question.

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I am holding the Rules of the House here that say in rule XV, clause 7, paragraph (c), ``After a measure has maintained at least 290 cosponsors for a cumulative period of 25 legislative days after the presentation of a motion under paragraph (b)(1), the measure shall be placed on the Consensus Calendar. Such measure shall remain on the Consensus Calendar until it is'' either ``considered in the House; or'' . . . ``reported by the committee of primary jurisdiction.''

Does tucking a measure into the underlying bill, as the self-enacting amendment does today, satisfy the (c)(1) requirement that it be considered in the House?

Madam Speaker, the gentleman has only yielded me 30 minutes, but I would be happy to reserve so that the gentleman can respond.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts, I don't believe I have any further speakers remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed serving on the gentleman from Massachusetts' Rules Committee; I confess, not as much as I enjoyed serving on the gentleman from Texas' Rules Committee, but it is because when you are on the Rules Committee, there are nine members in the majority and four members in the minority.

Now, we have talked a lot of math, a lot of votes, a lot of numbers today, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what happens when you serve on a committee where there are nine majority members and four minority members, and the answer is, what happens is you lose, and you lose a lot.

That is the privilege of being in the majority. When the American people send a new Speaker and a new majority here, that new majority gets to craft the process however they want to.

When we crafted the process when I was in the majority, we gave the minority more amendments than we gave the majority, and we did that because majorities have powers as committee chairmen. They don't have to put everything on the amendment calendar. They can tuck it into a bill.

As the roles have been reversed, again my friend from Massachusetts is making in order a record number of amendments today. He is making in order five times more Democratic amendments, folks who already have all the tools of power, than he is minority Republican amendments.

Again, it is the power of the majority. They get to do that if they want to do that. Is it fair? Well, we didn't think so. That is why we did it differently. But if that is what the gentleman wants to do, he can do it.

But to tuck a bipartisan measure--and I don't mean ``bipartisan'' because one Member signed onto it or two Members signed onto it; I mean ``bipartisan'' because hundreds of Members signed onto it--into a measure that intentionally lifts one party up while putting its foot on the throat of amendments of the other party does not constitute bipartisanship by any stretch of the imagination.

When my friend from Massachusetts was talking about the rules package--and he is the author of the rules package. I stipulate, no one knows more about the rules package than he does.

His heart was in the right place when he added this new Consensus Calendar. He said this: ``It unrigs the rules so the people's House actually works for the people again. Americans demanded a new direction, and this rules package will immediately usher in a new era for this Congress.''

We are 6 months later, Madam Speaker, and we heard from the author of the bill that is the subject of contention today. We heard from the author, the one who has gone out to do all the heavy lifting, do all the work to build all the bipartisanship--again, not one Member or two Members, but hundreds of Members. He said he wanted to avail himself of the Consensus Calendar to get a vote on the floor of the House, an unbiased, unrigged vote because, as my friend from Massachusetts said, the new rules package ``unrigs the rules.''

Yet, before we have considered anything else on the Consensus Calendar this entire year--Mr. Wilson's bill is number one on that Consensus Calendar--we are confronted with a rule today that turns off the very provision that my friend from Massachusetts inserted in the House rules package to unrig the process.

I don't question the motives of any Member of this institution, Madam Speaker, and partisan motives are fair game around here. We all wish that they weren't, but occasionally, they are.

When my friend from Massachusetts says that he has done this, this unprecedented use of the Consensus Calendar and turning it off, he says he is doing it so that the bill has the best chance of passage in the Senate and becoming law by being signed on the President's desk. I take him at his word that he means exactly that.

But I ask you, Madam Speaker, when the author of the bill, the one who has done all the work, not just for a week, not for a month, but for years to get this bill to a place where it can be considered by the Senate, why in the world would we not honor his request, his wish, his desire? Even if they are going to tuck it into this provision, why not allow the Consensus Calendar to take its course and get him the vote that he has worked so hard in a bipartisan way to achieve? If this isn't about partisan politics, why not give us two bites at making this the law of the land instead of just one?

If my friend from Massachusetts is right, and when we take a separate vote on this bill on Friday, it just disappears into the ethos, then no harm, no foul. But if my friend is wrong and the partisan game that is being played today exacts a toll--and it is not a toll on us as Members of Congress, but it is a toll on the widows of the members of our Armed Forces--then we all know that is a game that has gone too far.

I urge rejection of this rule. Defeat the previous question, allow our amendment, reject this rule, and allow the bipartisanship that this new majority offered and then enacted to come to fruition for the very first time.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I am a little confused about what has happened, Madam Speaker. Are we about to begin a new hour of debate on a new amendment after we just finished the hour of debate on the underlying rule?

Under the new hour, Madam Speaker?

Well, then I would ask my friend from Massachusetts--I only had 6 minutes to yield before, and I confess I did not yield any of them to my friend. The gentleman now has 60 minutes--could I ask for more than a minute of his time, the customary 30 minutes?

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

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.

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.