SAVE Act of 2021

Madam Speaker, in February of this year, more than two years after the cold-blooded murder of Washington Post journalist, and my constituent, Jamal Khashoggi, the Director of National Intelligence released a previously classified U.S. intelligence report.

The report clearly stated: ``We assess that Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.''

It concluded that ``since 2017, the Crown Prince has had absolute control of the Kingdom's security and intelligence organizations, making it highly unlikely that Saudi officials would have carried out an operation of this nature without the Crown Prince's authorization.''

We've always known, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman directed the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.

We also know that this operation is part of a broad and ongoing effort to use violence to intimidate and silence dissidents abroad.

Furthermore, we know that some of the killers of Jamal Khashoggi were trained in the United States, demonstrating an overwhelming need for reforms to our current arms sales processes and increased accountability.

And yet, despite all this, Crown Prince MBS and Saudi Arabia have generally been shielded from accountability, especially by the previous administration, signaling this kind of abhorrent behavior was somehow ok, inviting further atrocities.

That impunity ends with my amendment, based on the text of my bill, H.R. 1392, the Protection of Saudi Dissidents Act of 2021, which passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support earlier this year.

This legislation is targeted and does four things, specifically:

It limits arms exports to Saudi intelligence, internal security, or law enforcement entities if the President finds that Saudi Arabia has engaged in the following activities:

Forced repatriation, intimidation, or killing of dissidents in other countries;

The unjust imprisonment in Saudi Arabia of United States citizens or residents or the placing of travel restrictions on them or their family members;

And the torture of detainees in the custody of the Government of Saudi Arabia.

It requires the closure of one or more Saudi diplomatic facilities if the President finds that Saudi Arabia is using diplomatic or consular personnel to harass or harm Saudi nationals in the United States.

It requires a report on whether Saudi Arabia has been engaged in a consistent pattern of acts of intimidation or harassment directed against individuals in the United States.

And finally, it requires a report on whether the U.S. intelligence community fulfilled its duty to warn Jamal Khashoggi of threats to his life.

In the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I worked closely with the Chairman and Ranking Member to improve this legislation as introduced, ensuring that this effort is bipartisan.

This legislation has the support of dozens of human rights organizations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, PEN America, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Freedom Now, and many others.

When we turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, we embolden friend and foe alike to continue to engage in these horrific violations.

We must end this ``two-year pageant of impunity'' and finally hold Saudi Arabia accountable for their treatment of dissidents and those who stand up for human rights and against autocratic repression.

Jamal Khashoggi was not the only one to face the brutality of the Saudi regime and is not the only one who would benefit from this legislation.

I thank Chairman Meeks for his support on this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to join me in sending a message to human rights defenders, dissidents, and journalists worldwide and reaffirm the unshakeable American commitment to basic rights and freedoms.

I ask you to join me in supporting adoption of this amendment.

Madam Speaker, more than 4.7 million people around the globe have died because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In fact, more people in the United States have died from COVID-19 than they did from the 1918 flu pandemic--the previous worst pandemic to date.

For a year and a half, our lives, and the lives of people around the world, were completely upended, supply chains disrupted, governments thrown into disarray. This emergency impacted every part of our lives and we were caught completely unprepared.

We can't afford to let that happen again.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a dearth of leadership and strategy around U.S. planning for a global health security emergency.

As we continue to try to emerge from the worst of COVID-19, we now understand just how important planning like this truly is.

COVID-19 has underscored not only the need for a robust federal response to such a crisis, but also the importance of investing in global health security and pandemic preparedness around the world.

Given the disruption this pandemic has caused, it's clear that we need to consider global health security when we consider our national defense and security.

This amendment will:

Establish a Global Health Security Agenda Interagency Review Council overseen by the National Security Advisor and whose membership includes the heads of agencies relevant to carrying out the Global Health Security Agenda;

Establish a United States Coordinator for Global Health Security responsible for coordinating the interagency response to a global health security emergency;

Require the President to develop a global health security strategy with specific and measurable goals, benchmarks, and performance metrics that will improve U.S. leadership on global pandemic preparedness;

And establish an international Fund for Global Health Security and Pandemic Preparedness.

The text of this amendment is based on my bill H.R. 391, the Global Health Security Act, which passed the House earlier this year with broad bipartisan support--the fifth time that it has passed the House of Representatives.

The original legislation was improved with amendments during committee markup. They:

Updated the findings sections to reflect actions taken by the Biden Administration on global health security;

Tasks the National Security Advisor with overseeing interagency review council established in the bill;

Added the Department of the Treasury and ODNI to the council membership;

And elevated participation on the council to heads of agencies.

These edits were helpful suggestions from the Ranking Member and we were glad to incorporate them.

We wrote this legislation long before the current pandemic and have adapted the text to incorporate lessons learned.

I thank Representatives Chabot, Bera, Fitzpatrick, and Larsen for leading on the original bill with me, and for their support on this amendment.

The Biden Administration has already committed to funding the Fund for Global Health Security and Pandemic Preparedness, and included it in their FY22 Presidential Budget Request.

There is a similar, bipartisan effort in the Senate led by Senators Menendez and Risch, demonstrating the widespread support for bolstering global health security.

This is not a red or blue issue--this is an issue that impacts every single person on the planet.

This legislation is endorsed by Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN), the ONE Campaign, Pandemic Action Network, RESULTS VA, Right to Health Action and others. It is also supported by Centers for Disease Control and USAID.

Global health crises are ongoing and increasing--it's only a matter of time before the next one hits.

Saving lives from the next global pandemic starts with investing in preparedness before it strikes.

Diseases do not respect borders, and global health crises have immense security, economic, and humanitarian consequences.

With this legislation, the United States can be a leader on preventing and responding to the next pandemic.

It is past time this legislation become law.

Madam Speaker, this amendment would provide welcome accountability and transparency for our security cooperation training programs.

It would require the Department of Defense and Department of State to review the participants in security cooperation training programs from the last ten years to determine if any of the participants were later designated by the United States Government as human rights abusers, terrorists, or military coup participants.

The amendment would require such reporting be updated on an annual basis.

And, finally, it would create a reporting requirement to Congress for any names submitted to the Departments by the Chair and Ranking Member of the armed services and foreign affairs committees.

Earlier this year, it was reported that some of the members of the kill squad that murdered and dismembered Jamal Khashoggi were trained right here in the United States.

This is not something we found out through congressional reporting requirements from the Department of Defense, Department of State or public admissions from private sector contractors.

We found out because of reporting based on leaked documents.

It has also been reported that at least seven of the individuals who helped assassinate the President of Haiti, Jovenel Moise, were trained by the United States military.

The review and ongoing transparency required by this amendment would provide welcome oversight of U.S. security cooperation programs and ensure that our capacity building efforts are not working against American interests or values.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment to the FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act which would provide a statutory framework for the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, or FedRAMP, which was established administratively in 2011.

FedRAMP is a standardized approach to certifying and assessing in an ongoing manner the security of cloud computing technologies used across the federal government.

FedRAMP seeks to reduce the redundancies of federal cloud migration by creating a ``certify once, reuse many times'' model for cloud products and services that provide a cost-effective, risk-based approach to cloud adoption.

This amendment would codify the FedRAMP program and address many of the concerns raised by government and industry stakeholders.

For more than four years, I have worked with administrations under both Democratic and Republican leadership, industry stakeholders, and my friends on the other side of the aisle to ensure that the legislative text behind this amendment makes needed improvements to the FedRAMP program, but also gives the program flexibility to grow and adopt to myriad future changes in cloud technologies.

This amendment supports a critical need to keep our nation's information secure in cloud environments. It is an improvement for agencies, for our private sector partners, and for taxpayers.

Enabling the efficient and secure procurement of cloud computing technology is an important part of federal IT modernization efforts and essential to the federal government's transition to a more virtual, but secure posture.

The text behind this amendment has passed the House with bipartisan support three times in the span of a year. Once under suspension by voice vote in the 116th Congress, again as an amendment to the House National Defense Authorization Act for FY2021, and again as a standalone at the very beginning of the 117th Congress.

I want to thank the Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Comer, for co-sponsoring this amendment with me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2043's inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act.

I want to thank the distinguished Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform for working with Mr. Sarbanes and me to improve the bicameral Periodically Listing Updates to Management (PLUM) Act.

And I want to thank Mr. Smith for including this provision in the

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge support for my amendment that will take an important step towards restoring congressional war powers. This amendment will bring our unauthorized military presence in Syria to a long overdue debate in Congress so we can ultimately vote to authorize or reject military action.

Members on both sides of the aisle have long recognized the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973 grant Congress the exclusive power to send our servicemen and -women into war.

I represent parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, New York, and in my district I am humbled to represent so many veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country. Hundreds of thousands of brave men and women have spent years away from their families, missing precious moments in their families' lives. Many have seen their brothers and sisters in arms be injured and killed in battle. Many have suffered life-changing injuries themselves. Others have made the ultimate sacrifice. On a daily basis, more than 17 veterans die by suicide every single day. A study from Brown University's Costs of War project estimates that more than 7,000 servicemembers have been killed in post- 9/11 operations, and a suicide epidemic has claimed more than 30,000 Active Duty servicemembers and veterans.

Given the unimaginable sacrifice our troops make for our country, we owe them the respect of holding a debate and a vote on deploying them into harm's way. I hope that no one serving in this body would oppose honoring their service and their sacrifice by debating and voting on these life and death matters.

We haven't shown that respect in my view. Washington is known for military contractors lobbying for endless wars and a bloated Pentagon budget while our investments in schools, healthcare, and jobs at home are neglected. Our military footprint extends across dozens of countries far from public scrutiny and accountability. In Congress we find out about drone strikes after they occur in the news.

My amendment--which I am honored to be joined by Representatives Khanna, DeFazio, Schakowsky, Tlaib, Levin, Cohen, and Ritchie Torres in offering--is a fundamental next step toward breaking that cycle.

This is a question of war and peace that should be answered with a recorded vote in Congress.

This amendment does not take a position on substantive Syria policy questions. It merely requires this body to follow the Constitution and hold a debate and vote to authorize military action. I hope that my colleagues will agree that our troops and the American people deserve to see this body

hold that debate and then cast their vote.

Under the last administration, President Trump made it clear that U.S. military troops in Syria were there to secure the oil, but an explicit authorization from Congress was never obtained for that purpose.

I disagree with claims that the 2001 AUMF--which was about responding to the September 11 attacks--authorized our troops to engage in hostilities against these forces which nobody argues had anything to do with those attacks or to guard oil fields.

My colleagues who believe that the President does not need specific authorization to deploy U.S. military forces to seize Syria's oil in an unconstitutional war should just admit that to their constituents. They don't care about the duty of Congress, the Constitution, or the War Powers Act.

I agree with what President Biden said yesterday at the United Nations where he called for a new era of relentless diplomacy and that U.S. military power must be our tool of last resort, not our first, and should not be used as an answer to every problem we see around the world.

One step in the right direction would be to restore war powers, which is the solution put forth in this amendment.

After U.S. troops clashed with armed Syrian villagers last year, now- senior Biden NSC advisor Brett McGurk wrote on Twitter last year that American soldiers with an ill-defined mission in Syria are forced to navigate roads controlled by Russian and Syrian regime forces. He said that this is too much to ask of our brave warriors.

I agree. And that is why I am seeking a vote to show them the minimum respect of doing our constitutional duty and either authorizing a mission with clear goals and a timeline or bringing our troops home to their families.

I honor and respect the incredible sacrifices made by our Kurdish allies. Nothing in this amendment supports abandoning the Kurdish people, nor do I personally support that. The current unauthorized U.S. military presence of indefinite duration is disrespectful to the Kurdish people as it does not provide them the clarity that they need to make their own sovereign decisions about how best to protect their people and advance their own interests.

I want to have a transparent and vigorous debate in front of the American people on the role of the U.S. military in Syria.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a commonsense, good- government amendment that has already passed this House on a bipartisan basis.

Decades ago, Congress recognized that there is an inherent conflict of interest when elected officials, who decide how taxpayer dollars are spent,

are also allowed to contract with the Federal Government to receive those dollars. That is why Federal law prohibits every single Member of this body from contracting with the Federal Government.

At the time, it was thought that there was no need to include the President, Vice President, or members of the Cabinet in this statutory prohibition because every recent executive had voluntarily divested of their financial conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, that trend of presidential transparency was broken by the last administration. If we have learned anything from Donald Trump, it is that we can no longer rely on norms and tradition to ensure our elected officials do the right thing.

In 2014, the General Services Administration awarded The Trump Organization a contract to operate a hotel in the taxpayer-owned Old Post Office Pavilion. A provision in that contract specifically stated that no elected official of the Government of the United States shall be admitted to any share or part of this lease or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.

Despite this clear and unambiguous prohibition, the GSA shockingly declared that the President of the United States could continue to operate this hotel on Federal Government property and personally benefit from the proceeds of that operation.

As a result, it was easier than ever for foreign governments and special interests to put money directly into President Trump's pocket. Just ask Saudi Arabia, which reportedly spent $270,000 at the Trump Hotel in 2017, or the island nation of Cyprus, which hosted a ``Justice for Cyprus'' conference there, or the Iraqi sheikh who spent tens of thousands of dollars staying 26 nights at the hotel.

The solution to this problem is very simple. My amendment simply inserts ``the President, Vice President, and any Cabinet member'' into the existing statutory prohibition on Members of Congress contracting with the Federal Government.

With the addition of these eight words, we can ensure that every elected official is free from the conflict of interest associated with both deciding who gets Federal contracts and then benefiting from those contracts.

The American people deserve to know their President is working for them, not to line their own pockets.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and hold the President, Vice President, and members of the Cabinet to the same standard of conduct we hold ourselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues who oppose this amendment, I ask this simple question: If they think the President should be allowed to contract with the Federal Government, do they support repealing the current statute that prohibits every Member of the body from contracting with the Federal Government?

Of course they don't. That would be outrageous.

My amendment is common sense. It will apply to any President, regardless of party affiliation. It will help restore integrity to the Office of the President by closing the door on self-enrichment at the White House. And it will prevent some of the corruption that defined the Trump Presidency from ever happening again.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and impose the same standards of conduct we imposed on ourselves to every federally elected official.

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

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

Madam Speaker, this is an en bloc that was put together in close consultation with the minority. I urge all Members to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), one of our outstanding freshmen.

Madam Speaker, I have some more speakers who aren't ready to speak right now, so at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), who is another outstanding freshman Member.

Madam Speaker, I urge support of the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I fully support our law enforcement community, and particularly those in small and rural communities like those that pepper my entire congressional district. Those are the ones that benefit the most from the 1033 program.

Limiting military equipment transfers would significantly impede their ability to do their jobs to keep us safe. We need to be supporting our law enforcement community, not making their missions more difficult.

For that reason I oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. C. Scott Franklin), my friend and colleague, and a great member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), my good friend and a former sheriff.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), another outstanding freshman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want people to understand what the gentleman is proposing because it is naive and reckless.

When we get the budget proposal from the administration, it is just that. It is a proposal. But it is also from the executive branch. It is not coming directly from the combatant commanders, who are the individuals that we charge with the responsibility for executing the U.S. missions around the world.

This amendment would prohibit them giving us the items that were not funded by the President's budget proposal. Keep in mind, both this President and the last President have given us budget proposals that were grossly inadequate. We were able to remedy it under the last President; we were able to remedy it in this one with this President. And we depend heavily on what the combatant commanders tell us they need.

It is critical that Congress knows what the commanders need to keep our servicemembers safe and ensure the success of their missions.

Here is an example. In the fiscal year 2022 unfunded priority, the CENTCOM commander sent us a $106 million request to operate and maintain the Patriot batteries deployed in Iraq to keep our troops safe from missiles fired from Iran and the proxies in Syria.

That money was not in the Biden budget. We found out about it and funded it because of that critical need, and it is now in the bill because General McKenzie told us about it in his unfunded requirement list. We wouldn't have known about that otherwise. That is just one example of why this amendment is misguided.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman means well, but I am not misguided, and I don't misunderstand anything.

I know exactly what the unfunded requirements request list is, it is a vital piece of information for our committee to do its oversight, and I urge the Members of this body to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible and reckless amendment, and I urge all the Members of this body to reject it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment will strip $79 billion out of the bill. That would have catastrophic effects on our training and readiness.

I need to remind Members, we have been at war for two decades, we have worn out everything we have got. We have got to start replacing and modernizing for the future to be able to take on the threats from China and other adversaries. This will set us back on clean-up and environmental remediation of PFAS and other contaminated items.

It would put off construction of new military housing, schools, and childcare facilities, and the list goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does everything the gentlewoman just talked about. We are investing in those items that she has talked about, and we are divesting ourselves of those $78 billion worth of legacy platforms that will not be useful in the future, and we are applying that money toward future platforms.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais), my friend and colleague, and an outstanding member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that achieving or meeting the objectives that the gentlewoman just outlined and defense are not mutually exclusive, we can do both and should do both.

And I would point out that the $3.5 trillion that the other side is proposing doesn't spend a dime on defense. Also, we are in the process of auditing. The gentlewoman is exactly right, the Defense Department has never passed an audit. This bill continues the pressure on them to get that complete. We have had many agencies that passed, not all have, and we are not going to let up until they pass an audit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee, and an outstanding leader.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment guts our bill which is, I am certain, the gentlewoman's intention. It is recklessly irresponsible. It would harm our servicemembers and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This time they are stripping $25 billion in funding added by Republicans and Democrats on the committee.

The gentlewoman argues that the Biden budget is sufficient for our national defense. I strongly disagree. The Biden budget constitutes a cut of about $4 billion in real spending from last year. The budget cuts the number of Navy ships. It cuts the number of Navy ships and destabilizes the industrial base. It slashes procurement across the board. It guts missile defense. It leaves unfunded $25 billion in combatant commander priorities, and it cuts the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. At least they left the Space Corps alone.

It does all this while our adversaries, especially China, are investing in military modernization. China increased its defense spending by 75 percent over the last decade--6 percent this year alone. They are leapfrogging this into capabilities like AI and hypersonics, and they are stepping up malign operations against America and our allies.

What is the President's response to this?

He responds with a budget that would cut funding programs that we need to deter China. It doesn't make sense, especially when he is proposing to swell nondefense spending by a massive 16 percent this year. This bill corrects that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), who is a real leader on the Armed Services Committee and ranking member on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Alabama (Mr. Carl), who is one of our outstanding freshmen on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill before this body, the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act, would increase spending by 3 percent over inflation, which is a modest increase. And it passed our committee with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

This amendment guts the bill. I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this en bloc package was put together in close consultation with the minority. I urge all Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my longtime friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Madam Speaker, as I begin, I was grateful to support the prior amendment that we just had by President Gerry Connolly and also Congressman Steve Chabot, but I oppose this particular amendment.

U.S. troops are in Syria to fight ISIS. They were sent by President Barack Obama pursuant to the 2001 counterterrorism AUMF. The global war on terrorism is not over. It is moving, as we have sadly seen, the terrorist attack last week in New Zealand and as we see the terrorists who are coming across the southern border into the United States.

For years we have worked with our partners on the ground to eliminate the caliphate. We must not leave them behind as they have been brave patriots and could be subject to murderous terrorists.

This mission has been incredibly successful. However, the job is not done. The threat of ISIS against American families and our allies remains. The nations that have faced the most cross-border attacks are India with 60,000 deaths; Israel with--just this year, in the past couple of months--12,000 Iranian rockets by an attack by Hamas from Gaza; and, of course, in America 3,000 persons murdered on 9/11.

Our continued presence on the ground is necessary to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS and protecting American families by defeating terrorists overseas.

This shortsighted amendment would prematurely cut short our presence in Syria. Our small force in Syria is incredibly effective and part of the global coalition to defeat ISIS. This is not the time for America to abandon our allies and partners in Syria in the global war on terrorism. None of us want our soldiers overseas longer than absolutely necessary, but forcing a withdrawal too soon only ensures we will have to return as we saw in Iraq when the troops were withdrawn too soon, and U.S. troops had to go in just a few years later to fight ISIS.

In my opinion, we are seeing this play out again, sadly, in Afghanistan as the country is a safe haven for Islamic extremists to provide for suicide bomber attacks on families in India, Israel, and America.

We must avoid a similar situation in Syria. Withdrawals should be based on the defeat of ISIS, not an artificial timeline. We know the success of peace through strength, and we also know of failure by war through appeasement.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, although I would like to point out that I agree very much with my colleague from New York of the appreciation of our Kurdish allies.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, we are all concerned about the ongoing war in Yemen, including civilian casualties in the conflict with the Houthis murderously using civilians as human shields.

The Iran-backed Houthis continue to launch indiscriminate attacks against the Saudi homeland, threatening Saudi civilians and more than 70,000 American citizens residing in Saudi Arabia.

These murderous attacks target civilians and civilian infrastructure, like the Abha International Airport, causing death, injury, and damage to property. This is an intentional targeting of civilians and is in no way a military target.

The terrorist-supporting regime of Iran is using the Houthis as proxies in the ongoing global war on terrorism.

We cannot forget the pain and suffering that the Houthis themselves have inflicted on the Yemeni citizens with the Houthi brutal subjugation and occupation.

One-sided initiatives that restrict U.S. support for Saudi Arabia, in word or deed, only telegraph more vulnerability that will lead to further attacks by the Houthis. We know the success of peace through strength and the failure of war through appeasement.

It is encouraging that, in recent weeks, the Biden administration's messaging has focused strongly on the Houthis' intransigence in ending the conflict in Yemen, calling on the Houthis to agree to a comprehensive cease-fire immediately.

We must stop terrorists overseas to protect our allies who are targeted by the terrorists. India has lost over 60,000 persons due to cross-border terrorism; Israel, this year, has had to face nearly 12,000 rockets provided by Iran to the Hamas terrorists in Gaza; and, sadly, we noted the 20th anniversary of 3,000 Americans killed on September 11, 2001.

We should be using our longstanding relationship with the Saudis to press them to take every possible precaution to prevent civilian casualties. For nearly a century, there has been a warm cultural, educational, military, and economic partnership with the people of Saudi Arabia.

But this amendment is too far detached from the sad realities of the Houthi attacks across the border and in Yemen. The drones and rockets have been provided by the terrorist-sponsoring regime of Iran, which oppresses its citizens and defames the extraordinary heritage of Persia.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate and join, actually, with my colleagues to point out that it has been encouraging in recent weeks that the Biden administration has changed its messaging to strongly focus on the Houthis' intransigence in ending the conflict in Yemen and calling for the Houthis to agree to a comprehensive cease-fire immediately, as we also recognize, again, that we have had a 100-year relationship with the people of Saudi Arabia that has been so mutually beneficial for the people of Saudi Arabia, the United States, and our allies.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition, with the great appreciation of our chairman, Greg Meeks--great appreciation, even if I disagree.

We are all concerned about the ongoing war in Yemen, including the civilian casualties in the conflict due to the Houthis using human shields.

However, sadly, many are focused disproportionately on Saudi Arabia while the Iran-backed Houthis continue to terrorize the people of Yemen and launch intentional, indiscriminate attacks against the Saudi homeland of innocent civilians, where 70,000 Americans live and work.

We need to be aware of how the rhetoric in America regarding Saudi Arabia and the Yemen war empowers the Houthis to engage in further aggression with the murderous, intentional attacks on Saudi citizens, using drones and rockets provided by the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Iran, which oppresses its citizens and defames the extraordinary heritage of Persia. Iran perpetuates the ongoing global war on terrorism.

It is encouraging that, in recent weeks, the Biden administration's messaging has strongly focused on the Houthis' intransigence in ending the conflict in Yemen, calling on the Houthis to agree to a comprehensive cease-fire immediately.

Additionally, the President already announced his plan to end U.S. support for offensive operations in Yemen, including relevant arms sales.

We should wait and see the results of this new policy before adding further legislative restrictions. We should be using our longstanding relationship with the Saudis to press them to take every precaution against civilian casualties. For nearly a century, there has been a warm cultural, educational, military, and economic partnership with the wonderful people of Saudi Arabia.

While the amendment contains specified exceptions, it does not address the core challenge of trying to rehabilitate the U.S.-Saudi partnership while trying to improve Saudi actions with respect to civilian protections as Houthis murderously use human shields.

I do not think this amendment helps protect our national security interests in the Middle East, nor will it measurably change Saudi actions. We should be standing for the success of peace through strength and not the failure of war through appeasement.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will disagree with Chairman Ted Deutch. Usually, we agree.

Additionally, I disagree with Chairman Greg Meeks, but I do appreciate the chairman's recognition of the Iranian and Houthi drone attacks on civilian communities where large numbers of Americans live.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendments included in En Bloc No. 1. My first amendment, No. 100, would require DoD to develop more distributed military and Intelligence Community satellite architectures through a limitation of funds until Secretary of Defense certifies that the Secretary of Air Force is carrying out the program and the appropriate report on implementation is provided. His amendment was part of a China Task Force recommendation from last year that was dropped from the FY21 NDAA, despite its inclusion in the report. Section 1607 of the FY2020 NDAA mandated that the Secretary establish a program to prototype an M-code based, multi-global navigation satellite system receiver that is capable of receiving covered signals with the intent to increase the resilience and capability of military position and navigation equipment. This program would as a result deter the liklihood of attack on the worldwide Global Positioning System by reducing the benefits of such an attack. In last year's annual report to congress, the ``Military and Security Developments involving the People's Republic of China'' highlighted PRC military strategists increasing development of capabilities that utilize space-based systems and to deny use of space-based systems to adversaries as central to modern warfare. The report further cites China's strengthening of its military space capabilities despite its public stance against the militarization of space. This program is critical to countering the CCP's intent to reduce U.S. competitive technological advantage in space. Just this spring, the DNI's annual Threat Assessment highlighted the PRC's advancing interests in advancements in the space domain, detailing China's intent to continue to develop craft to intercept, capture, or destroy US satellites. Additionally, this past summer Director of Intelligence for Indo- Pacific Command, Rear Adm. Studeman repeated similar concerns: ``From dazzling to jamming, to kinetic kill-from-the-ground, from space--all that, they're on the march. They take a look at our space capability and want to equal and exceed those and be able to dominate to guarantee themselves the maneuvering they need to be able to secure their objectives if they're in a fight.'' It is critical that as we further develop space-capabilities we

do so by prioritizing resilience in these systems as our adversaries continue to develop technology to not just rival, but dominate our efforts in the space domain.

My second amendment included in this En Bloc, No. 101, would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from altering the designation of uranium as a critical mineral until a report assessing the effects of the loss of domestic uranium production. The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce, are to conduct the assessment of the national security impact of removing uranium from the list and submit a follow-up report. The U.S. Geological Survey, which updates the critical minerals list every three years, published its revised methodology published in May noting that ``Fuel minerals, including uranium, were explicitly excluded from consideration in this analysis.'' Removing uranium from this list, as the Biden Administration is proposing, is another effort to cave to the whims of environmental groups. The impact of this is not exclusive to national security. Domestic uranium production has almost completely idled and the source of uranium for our reactors has increasingly become foreign state-owned entities. Keeping it as a resource on the list will go a long way to restoring and securing American uranium production.

Producing less energy at home means that we are forced to rely on our adversaries for these critical resources, emboldening them and weakening our global standing as they attempt to undermine our interests. U.S.-origin uranium is critical to national defense for the purpose of nuclear weapons and the naval fleet, providing propulsion for 11 aircraft carriers and 70 submarines. Many international nuclear cooperation agreements to which the United States is a party, restrict the use of nuclear material imported under those agreements to peaceful uses. The United States requires U.S.-origin uranium and nuclear technologies for use in the production of uranium-based products for U.S. defense systems, with no foreign obligations that restrict the uses of such nuclear material. At this time, there is only one functional enrichment facility in the United States despite employing three major defense systems that require highly-enriched uranium. Removing uranium from the critical minerals list would be a dangerous and misguided decision as it is a vital component to both our national security and energy security. We cannot continue to rely on unfriendly nations that leverage energy dominance for geopolitical influence. These amendments are important additions to the National Defense Authorization Act and highlight the diverse challenges to our national security. I am encouraged by their inclusion into En Bloc No. 1 and urge adoption into the final bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 38, offered by my colleague Rep. Garamendi. The sponsors of this amendment would have you believe that this amendment is an attempt to save money and that life extending the Minuteman III ICBM is a cost saver. This is simply untrue. The House Armed Services Committee has heard witness after witness testify that any Minuteman Ill life extension will cost billions more than GBSD. We've heard from Admiral Richard of STRATCOM, General Hyten, and General Milley that the current ICBM can no longer be credibly or affordably sustained--and even if it could, it would not meet deterrence requirements of the future. According to Secretary Austin, even if the Minuteman III could be life extended, which is increasingly difficult as antiquated parts fall out of production, such an effort would be at least $38 billion more expensive than GBSD. For the MM III to be usefully life extended, the United States would need to replace a number of major missile components--which, even if accomplished at cost and on time, would still fall short of the Department of Defense's requirements--including accommodating modern safety and security features and defeating the emerging anti-missile technologies of our adversaries. GBSD will incorporate low risk, technically mature components; feature a modular architecture that can incorporate emerging technology to adapt to rapidly evolving threat environments; and will be easier to maintain than the MM III--all of which will save on costs and provide great value as GBSD operates well into the 2070s. Finally, the GBSD program will not only replace the MM III missile, but also modernize the launch facilities, improve command and control, and increase safety and security. While our adversaries are modernizing

their deterrents at breakneck speed, the proposed amendment would keep America in the past. I will oppose the Garamendi amendment.