Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to my good friend and former House staff member Roselee Roberts, who passed away on April 22, 2020 in McDaniel, MD, on Maryland's Eastern shore. Roselee was a tireless advocate for America's space program and she will be deeply missed by many.

Roselee was born on April 24, 1942 in Baltimore, Maryland. After high school, she attended the University of Miami in 1960 and graduated with honors and a degree in math and economics in 1964. While in college, Roselee ran the campus speaker's bureau, where she met her future husband, William ``Art'' Roberts. After graduating, she was recruited and hired into a management position with AT&T's Southern Bell Co. at their Jacksonville, Florida office. About a year later, she and Art wed and moved to Reston, Virginia. A few years later, Roselee was selected to serve as a Junior Economist on President Lyndon Johnson's Council of Economic Advisers.

Following positions with the Office of Management and Budget and as Rep. Bill Nelson's (D-Florida) chief aide on the House Budget Committee, Roselee launched her space career by serving as a staff member on the House Science and Technology Committee's Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. In 1985, she left Capitol Hill for a position in the McDonnell Douglas legislative affairs office, which later merged with the Boeing Corporation. In that era, the space and aeronautics industry was predominantly comprised of men with military backgrounds. To support and encourage women in the industry, Roselee helped establish Women in Aerospace. The group now includes more than 2,000 individual and corporate members.

In 2005, I was truly blessed to have Roselee head back to the House and serve as the staff director for the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee while I held the gavel as Chairman. With the space shuttle program and International Space Station facing significant challenges, the space industry was at an inflection point at that time. Thanks in large part to Roselee's determination and leadership, we were able to successfully pass and have a NASA authorization bill signed into law for the first time in five years. After serving in the House again, Roselee moved over to NASA headquarters for her final government post as the Special Assistant to the agency's Deputy Administrator.

Roselee is survived by her husband, Art, of 54 years; their children, Elizabeth (Libby) Roberts Holah and husband, Greg; and granddaughters Olivia Holah and Violet Holah, and Leigh Roberts Melton and husband, John; granddaughter Harper Melton and grandson Hunter Melton. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Roberts family, her friends, and everyone fortunate enough to have known Roselee. Although she may be gone, the many contributions Roselee made to our country will have a lasting impact.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to my good friend and former Norco Mayor Kathy Azevedo, who passed away on Thursday, May 20, 2021. Kathy was a tireless advocate for, and inspirational member of, the Horsetown USA community of Norco, California and she will be deeply missed by many.

Kathy proudly called Norco her hometown and graduated from Norco High School in 1971. If you knew Kathy, you know she had a bright smile and lot of energy. She put both of those attributes to work as a Jazzercise instructor and in a leadership role with the Norco Chamber of Commerce. In 2003, Kathy was elected to the Norco City Council where she would serve for 12 years. Throughout her time on the council, Kathy was a staunch proponent for maintaining Norco's rural lifestyle and supported economic development that was a good match for the community.

Kathy's legacy will be one of service and putting the needs of others before her own. As someone who understood the value of bringing a community together, Kathy was integral in organizing the Norco Fair, the National Day of the American Cowboy, as well as the Horsetown Parade of Lights and Christmas Festival. After her cancer diagnosis many years ago, Kathy was determined not only to fight her own disease but also to support other women who were battling cancer. She co- founded a non-profit organization, Support Sisterz, comprised of breast cancer survivors who raise money to help women who have been recently diagnosed with cancer and need emotional and financial support.

Kathy is survived by her husband Danny Azevedo, mother Ellen Seiberling, brother Lance Seiberling, daughter Stacy Azevedo, son Chad Azevedo, and her grandchildren Troy Nicola, Gracie Nicola, Reagan Azevedo, and Evyn Azevedo. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Azevedo family, her friends, and everyone fortunate enough to have known Kathy. Although she may be gone, the many contributions Kathy made to Horsetown USA, cancer patients and her family will have a lasting impact.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Eastvale City Council Member Ike Bootsma, who passed away on Friday, May 14, 2021. Ike was a dedicated leader in our Riverside County community and he will be deeply missed.

Ike was one of nine children born to Trynje and Jim Bootsma, his Dutch immigrant parents who were among the first families to establish a dairy in Chino Valley in the late 1930s. Following in the agricultural and entrepreneurial footsteps of his parents, Ike started his own calf ranch in 1975. As the area began to grow and local dairy farms began to make

way for homes, Ike was one of the leaders behind the efforts to incorporate the city of Eastvale in 2010. In November of that year, voters elected Ike to the new city's very first city council.

In addition to his service as mayor and on the city council, Ike represented Eastvale on a number of regional government boards, including Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Riverside Transit Agency. He also spent considerable time as an active member of community based organizations, including the Eastvale Kiwanis Club, the Eastvale Chamber of Commerce, and the Eastvale Roadway Adoption Program. According to his daughter, Metchelle Bootsma, one of Ike's favorite ways to give back was to put his big white beard to work by serving as Santa Claus at various children's events.

Ike is survived by his wife Squeaker, and his children Shaun Bootsma, Heidi Tillman, Mike Kirk, and Metchelle Bootsma, as well as six grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Bootsma family, his friends, and everyone fortunate enough to know Ike. Although he may be gone, the many contributions Ike made to his community and family will have a lasting impact.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Canyon Lake City Council Member Jordan Ehrenkranz, who passed away on Tuesday, May 4, 2021. Jordan was a tireless and compassionate member of our Riverside County community and he will be deeply missed.

Jordan was born in Los Angeles, California, August 21, 1933. After attending local schools, Jordan began his career by becoming a sheet metal industry apprentice in a shop in Santa Monica. Just a few years later, at the age of 24, Jordan took his first step on what would become a lifelong entrepreneurial path by starting his own business. In 1967, Jordan acquired Ideal Heating and Air Conditioning and shortly thereafter became involved with the local chapter of the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association. Jordan would go on to serve in various leadership roles within the association throughout his career and received its Career Legislative Service Award in 2011.

Jordan continued to demonstrate his leadership after moving to the City of Canyon Lake, where he would go on to serve on the Board of Directors for the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association for five years before being elected to the Canyon Lake City Council in 2008. After serving 12 years on the city council, including four years as mayor, Jordan became the longest serving city council member in the city's history. In addition to his community service, Jordan enjoyed bowling, playing poker, and dedicating his time to clubs such as the Men's Golf Club, Canyon Lake Association of Men, Fine Arts Guild, POA Facility Reviews Committee, and the Travel Club. In recognition of his significant involvement, Jordan was fittingly honored as the Canyon Lake Citizen of the Year in 2019.

Jordan is survived by his wife, Jennie Ehrenkranz, their five grown children, and seven grandchildren. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Ehrenkranz family, his friends, and everyone fortunate enough to know Jordan. Although he may be gone, the many contributions Jordan made to his community and family will have a lasting impact.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual from my hometown of Corona, California whose dedication and contributions to our nation are exceptional. On Saturday, May 29, 2021, retired Lieutenant Colonel Arthur B. Cook, Jr. will serve as the 2021 Grand Marshal of the 7th annual Memorial Mile March. The March is an event hosted by the Corona Chamber Foundation to honor our military and those who have proudly served our nation in uniform.

Lt. Col. Cook proudly served in the United States Army for 27 years and 7 months. Early on in his career, Lt. Col. Cook held the honor of Platoon Leader of the Old Guard, the Army unit that performs the funeral services for Arlington National Cemetery and guards the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. On the solemn evening when President John F. Kennedy's body was brought to rest at Arlington National Cemetery, Lt. Col. Cook was on duty with the Old Guard.

Later in his Army career, Lt. Col. Cook graduated with distinction from The Infantry School and Officer Candidate School. During a tour of duty in Vietnam, Lt. Col. Cook was awarded the Silver Star and two Bronze Stars for valor in action. He also received the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Presidential Unit Citation, Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Action Medal among many others. Upon returning from Vietnam he and his wife, Dickey, and daughter, Noelle, settled in Corona. The Cooks have lived in the same home in Corona since 1969.

In light of all that Lt. Col. Cook has done for our nation and community, it is only fitting to honor him as the Grand Marshal in the Memorial Mile March. On behalf of everyone in the 42nd Congressional District I want to thank Lt. Col. Cook for his service to our nation. I add my voice to the many who will be congratulating Lt. Col. Cook for being selected as the 2021 Memorial Mile March Grand Marshal.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3237.

While I support some of its provisions, I have strong concerns about many items included in this bill and the manner by which the majority has crafted it.

As the Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I am strongly supportive of the reimbursement to the National

Guard for the costs incurred due to their extended deployment in support of Capitol Police and other law enforcement agencies. We need to reimburse them as soon as possible to avoid having to cancel drill weekend and other training.

Our Guardsmen and women have patriotically taken time away from their families, careers, and communities to protect our nation's capital. I, along with my colleagues, thank them for their service.

However, I am strongly opposed to the majority's proposal to stand up a Quick Reaction Force comprised of the D.C. National Guard.

While Congress should consider the creation of a form of a Quick Reaction Force, it should be comprised of law enforcement, not military. They are better suited and have training that is more specific to this mission.

Like much of this bill, the majority has hastily crafted this concept in a partisan manner without thinking through all of the ramifications. Our subcommittee has held no hearings on this issue. This issue deserves a much more thoughtful and deliberate approach.

I also echo my colleagues concerns about the funding proposed to create physical barriers around the Capitol complex. The extended duration of the fencing has been entirely unnecessary. Continuing this into the future is expensive, misguided, and is unfair to the American people--who deserve access to their Nation's Capital.

For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Paul D. Jones II who will be retiring this spring after a highly distinguished career of service in the California water industry. For over twenty-five years, Mr. Jones has been the top executive officer for major water agencies in the Southern California region. Over the last decade, Mr. Jones has served as the General Manager for Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), which serves nearly one million customers in western Riverside County.

During his tenure at EMWD, Mr. Jones has been widely recognized for his leadership in elevating Eastern to one of the most respected and forward-thinking water, wastewater and recycled water agencies in the nation. Mr. Jones played an instrumental role in notable accomplishments for EMWD, such as the agency's achievement of 100 percent beneficial reuse of its recycled water supplies, the initiation of its potable reuse program, and the spearheading of key infrastructure investments which will provide safe and reliable services for future generations. Under Paul's direction,

EMWD was able to substantially expand the agency's desalination program creating a new local water source for its residents. The federal and state funding secured for this initiative resulted in the construction of the South Perris Desalter project, which will produce 6,000 acre- feet per year of potable water.

Mr. Jones was also a leading advocate for transforming the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI recycled water funding program into a competitive grant program--a goal which was realized through the enactment of the Water Infrastructure Investment for the Nation (WIIN) Act in 2016. While President of the WateReuse Association, Mr. Jones helped to develop the nation's first ever federal Water Reuse Action Plan which formally launched in February 2020. During California's historic drought, Mr. Jones worked with other state water leaders to create a more equitable system that rewarded proactive water use efficiency measures. In addition, Paul has led the way in California for a more viable alternative to assist failing water systems without the need for a statewide tax on all water users.

On the local level, Mr. Jones has played a key role in a local agency partnership to transform the area near Diamond Valley Lake into an environmentally sustainable recreational area. In addition, on behalf of EMWD Mr. Jones has made innumerable contributions at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, the Association of California Water Agencies, the Southern California Water Coalition, and the California WateReuse Association. I would like to thank Paul Jones for his service to the community and water industry and wish him much happiness in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I was prevented from voting on the motion to recommit on March 9, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on the motion to recommit H.R. 842.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment en bloc No. 4 and the underlying bill.

I have a long list of concerns with this bill, and at the top of this list is nationwide ballot harvesting.

Democrats in California have already legalized ballot harvesting in our State. Despite our concerns with the practice, Republicans were determined to play by the rules and utilized legal ballot collection methods in the last election.

One amendment in this package, offered by my California colleague, puts this hypocrisy on full display. Under current law, with my colleague's amendment, a foreign operative--maybe a Russian operative, maybe a Chinese spy--could still handle ballots for untold numbers of people. My colleague's amendment is a blatant attempt to criticize ballot harvesting only when the other guys do it.

In other words, California Democrats think it is fine when their paid operatives collect ballots from strangers and throw them in a bag. But they object when churches try to collect them for members of their congregation and put them in a box.

Don't be fooled. Democrats don't want to facilitate ballot collection for all Americans. They just want to make it easier for their operatives to harvest ballots and will cry foul whenever Republicans try to play by the same rules.

Madam Speaker, as a Member from California, it is hard for me to believe that the majority could possibly propose an election security bill that doesn't address the major vulnerabilities related to ballot harvesting.

Ballot harvesting is where paid campaign operatives collect up to hundreds or even thousands of ballots and drop them off at polling places or an election office. The practice is ripe for fraud and a recipe for disaster. Any serious effort to secure elections would address it.

Let's be clear: We want to give people who need it an opportunity to vote by mail, and we want to look for ways to make it easier for disabled or elderly Americans to participate in our elections. My concern is inserting campaign operatives into the ballot-handling process without any safeguards.

In California, paid campaign staff can collect hundreds of ballots without having to disclose who they are working for. When they hand over those ballots to election officials, there is no requirement to even provide their name.

Some of my friends across the aisle claim that the real problem is bad actors committing fraud. But it is the very practice of ballot harvesting being the problem. The reality is this process is an open invitation for fraud. That is why most States have banned the practice.

Ignoring the most notable threat to election security is unacceptable in a so-called election security bill.

Madam Speaker, American voters deserve better. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill until we can get serious about real threats to our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to someone who has made a significant impact here in this proud institution for the past four decades. For the past twelve years, my office and I have been extremely fortunate to have Patricia ``Tricia'' Evans on our staff.

Tricia is from Westchester, New York, and to say she is a proud New Yorker is putting it mildly. She's also an Irish Catholic through and through--all the way down to being a devout meat and potatoes eater-- except, of

course, on Fridays during Lent. After graduating from Iona College, Tricia taught first grade at Good Shepherd School for a few years before shifting to politics. In the summer of 1979, Tricia launched her career on Capitol Hill as a staff assistant for conservative stalwart and fellow New Yorker Jack Kemp. Prior to joining my office, Tricia served a number of House Members, including dedicated tenures serving my former California colleague Elton Gallegly and Arizonan J.D. Hayworth.

In 2007, I was incredibly fortunate to have a seasoned staff member like Tricia join my office. When she first came on board, Tricia wasn't exactly a big fan of flying, especially cross county to our district in California. But after we introduced her to In-N-Out Burger she became more open to flying out West--it's amazing how a Double-Double can ease anxieties. We never quite converted her from a New Yorker to a Californian, but I'd like to think she will always carry within her a little piece of the Golden State.

As Tricia winds up her time in my office to take on a new opportunity, it's impossible to sum up her immense contributions. Of all my constituents whom she has helped, I think that the folks from the Monday Morning Group will miss her the most. I know Tricia rightfully takes great pride in her efforts to secure passage of the 9/ 11 Memorial Act into law. She was deeply and personally touched by the 9/ 11 attack as a native New Yorker and by the loss of her friend, Navy Captain Bob Dolan, who was killed at the Pentagon on that tragic day. Tricia took the ''Never Forget'' refrain and put it into action to honor her friend Bob and all who perished. Tricia has also been involved in helping the Capitol Concerts that take place on the Hill every year on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. All Americans who enjoy these patriotic events can thank Tricia for working overtime to ensure their success.

Tricia loves her country and everything Disney. There is also no bigger fan of Bruce Springsteen, Tom Selleck or Joe Namath. But nothing in her life comes close to her love for her two children: Shannon and Patrick. They are an incredibly close and loving family, which can be attested to by me and my Chief of Staff who can't help but overhear regular calls from each of the kids that always end with, ``I love you.'' I won't say that these calls happen too frequently, but I have developed a nervous tick whenever I hear her cell phone ring tone. Seriously though, Tricia's love for and dedication to her children are a testament to her fine character. I will deeply miss her and her selflessness, loyalty and impassioned devotion to supporting me and my office. I look forward to my continued friendship with Tricia and wish her, Shannon, and Patrick, the very best in all their future endeavors. Godspeed.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, and I thank the Defense Subcommittee chairman for working with our side to include many amendments important to our Members. The chairman has been a great partner and has been very fair throughout this process.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment risks undermining the readiness of our military at a time when we can least afford it. It does so by prohibiting the implementation of a careful and thoughtful policy developed by a panel of military experts last year regarding military service by transgender individuals.

Then-Secretary of Defense Mattis wrote that, in his best professional judgment, allowing military service by transgender individuals in the absence of this policy could ``undermine the readiness, disrupt the unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military that is not conductive to military effectiveness and lethality.''

This current policy is not--I repeat, not--a ban on service by transgender individuals. It carefully balances the readiness needs of the military with the medical needs of transgender individuals who wish to serve.

As new recruits, those individuals can serve openly under their biological gender so long as they have not suffered from gender dysphoria within 36 months and have not undergone gender transition procedures.

Furthermore, the new policy only applies to those seeking to join the military after its April 12, 2019, implementation and allows the service and the Coast Guard to waive its application in individual cases.

This issue is not one of social policy but of deployability. Individuals with medical conditions that do not allow them to deploy, such as those identified in the policy, adversely impact military readiness and reduce the military's warfighting capability.

I would also point out that individuals who require daily injections for other medical conditions are also not deployable, such as people who have diabetes.

Madam Chair, the military is an institution with one primary mission: to fight and win our Nation's wars. Anything that interferes with its readiness for that mission poses an unacceptable risk to our men and women in uniform.

Unfortunately, this amendment poses just such a risk by disregarding the military's professional judgment and interfering with the policy developed to preserve warfighting readiness.

Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I ask the Chair how much time is remaining?

Madam Chairwoman, section 702 authorizes the intelligence community to target the communications of non-U.S. persons located outside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes.

This FISA section 702 program is an important tool for the intelligence community to gather foreign intelligence information to protect the homeland against international terrorism, weapons proliferation, hostile actions, cyber actors, and other threats to the national security.

Importantly, its focus is on foreigners located abroad. It does not allow the intelligence community to target U.S. persons. Section 702 collections already include significant protection for civil liberties and privacy.

While the amendment may be well-intentioned, I fear it will upset the delicate balance reflected in current wording of this provision. The recent comprehensive review and bipartisan reauthorization of section 702 by Congress would strongly suggest that additional changes to the program without a full review of the potential impact is ill-advised.

Madam Chairwoman, intelligence officials from the Obama administration and the Trump administration have asserted, as FBI Director Christopher Wray recently reiterated, that section 702 is one of the most viable tools we have in our toolbox to keep America safe. Accordingly, I oppose this amendment.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I support the amendment.

Madam Chair, the Army identified a $75.6 million unfunded requirement for the future vertical lift program, and this amendment helps to address that by adding an additional $9 million, as the chairman brought out, to this program.

Madam Chair, this is a good program. I support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, just 5 months ago, the Department of Defense completed a public assessment titled ``Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense.''

The report accompanying the bill includes further directive language regarding additional reporting requirements for the department.

How many reports do we need on this topic in 1 year? This amendment is extraneous and unnecessary; I urge my colleagues to oppose it; and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for this amendment. They make that fine ship in San Diego, California, and we want to defend it to the hilt, so we appreciate this amendment.

It makes the bill a better bill, and I thank the gentleman for bringing that bill forward.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, at the outset, it should be clear: There is no country that is more hostile to the interests of the United States and our allies, especially Israel, than Iran.

In fact, as we debate this bill, the U.S. and our partners in the region are under serious threat from Iran and its proxies.

As our commander of the U.S. Central Command, General Frank McKenzie, said recently, the Iranian threat remains imminent.

Just last week, Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces used a type of magnetic mine--a limpet mine--to attack Japanese and Norwegian oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

In addition to this threat to international freedom of navigation and commerce, Iran's Houthi proxies have launched sustained attacks on airports and other infrastructure targets within Saudi Arabia.

In this context, it is clearly in the national interest of the United States to ensure that our partners in the region have the capabilities they need to counter a hostile Iran.

The sweeping scope of this amendment, however, seeks to block all 22 of these arms sales instead of those few that may be of particular concern. For example, it would attempt to prevent the transfer of precision-guided munitions to our ally Jordan, as well as a number of other seemingly noncontroversial cases.

Madam Chair, we need to work with our partners in the region to accomplish common objectives on counterterrorism and in deterring Iran, including through timely U.S. defense transfers.

Arbitrarily stopping a large number of arms sales, regardless of their sensitivity, will hinder the ability of our combatant commander to accomplish these goals. It will also undermine the reputation of the United States as a reliable security partner and provide opportunities to China or Russia to erode U.S. influence in the region.

I want to acknowledge that all of us are deeply concerned with the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen. I support the efforts of the executive branch to work with the U.N. Special Envoy toward a political resolution of this conflict.

It is also unfortunate that the Department of State decided to utilize an emergency waiver authority on the arms sales that are the subject of this amendment. Congressional oversight over arms transfers is an important responsibility, and it would have been best had these sensitive matters been handled through the traditional consultative process.

This is not the appropriate vehicle to vindicate those congressional prerogatives. That responsibility rests with the Foreign Affairs and Foreign Relations Committees, and not in this bill.

Madam Chair, accordingly, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we need to stand by our allies and oppose Iran. This amendment is not helpful. I encourage all of our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I will be very quick.

I am shocked: The Russians are cheating.

Now that our treaty obligations are suspended, the United States needs to move forward with developing ground-launched INF missile capability.

Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, do you trust the Russians? I don't trust the Russians.

Those who think they are making the world safer by refusing to support the programs should remember the ancient Latin adage, ``If you want peace, prepare for war.''

That has never been more applicable than in regard to this program.

Madam Chair, this amendment is vital to maintaining deterrence and peace. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

I might point out that the Russians are under the perception that this is a strategic imperative from their perspective. So from my perspective, let's remove that misconception and vote in favor of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of 2020 funds for development of a long-range standoff weapon program.

A long-range standoff missile will be a nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile that the U.S. Air Force is scheduled to first deploy in the early 2030s.

The LRSO is necessary for maintaining the deterrent capability currently provided by a rapidly aging air-launched cruise missile. According to the Department of Defense, the current air-launched cruise missile is already decades beyond its originally planned service time.

As General John Hayden, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, has stated: ``The ALCM is encountering sustainability and viability issues from age-related material failures . . . and diminishing manufacturing sources. Parts and materials designed for a 10-year service life are now 35 years old and are obsolete.''

In addition to severe problems with maintenance and reliability, the ALCM has a significant degraded ability to survive modern air defense systems. We also need the long-range standoff weapon because conventional air-launched cruise missiles are unable to effectively meet the same deterrence requirements.

Madam Chair, sustaining the nuclear standoff capability in the air leg of the U.S. strategic triad strengthens our deterrence. Conventional weapons are not capable of fulfilling the nuclear-armed cruise missile's contribution to, and role in, an effective deterrence and reassurance of U.S. allies.

Effective deterrence requires that an adversary believes that the United States can and may respond in kind to a nuclear attack.

For these reasons, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

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

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, I just find it unnecessary. There is robust funding in the bill for this activity to fight encroachment on our military bases, and that is really kind of between the local government and local State and local groups.

Madam Chair, I make that point, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the ranking member from Texas (Ms. Granger), and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Visclosky for the great working relationship we have had going through this legislation in detail. We do this for the men and women who serve the United States military. We want to make sure that they have the best quality of life and, obviously, that we procure the best weapons that are available to make sure that if ever we are in unfortunate circumstances, we do not have a fair fight.

It has been a great experience. I also thank all the staff for the great work that they have done on both the majority and the minority.

I do want to point out one thing to the chairman. There is going to be a meeting tomorrow at the White House, hopefully, about a budget agreement. Hope springs eternal, but, hopefully, we can get a budget agreement with the White House, the House, and the Senate so that we don't have to go into sequestration later this year, which, as the gentleman knows, would be a disaster for the United States military. Let's wish them well as they try to work out an agreement.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Granger and Chairwoman Lowey both for their leadership and expertise throughout this process.

I also acknowledge the work of Chairman Visclosky. Mr. Chair, I am grateful for Mr. Visclosky's dedication to our U.S. servicemembers and our national security and for his willingness to listen and work with us to put together this bill. I very much appreciate the bipartisan way in which the gentleman has managed the Defense Subcommittee. It has been an honor to work with him, and I look forward to finishing our work on time.

There is a lot of good work in this bill. However, the United States faces an increasingly challenging geopolitical landscape, one that requires a strong U.S. military to help maintain global peace and stability.

While we have been at war in the Middle East for nearly two decades, other regions of the world have been watching us and chipping away at our military superiority. Unfortunately, the funding levels recommended in this bill are inadequate to enable us to address the needs of our military and maintain our superiority over our adversaries.

The fiscal year 2020 Defense bill before the House today includes $622 billion in base funding and another $68 billion in overseas contingency operations, or OCO, funding, for a total of $690 billion. The amount is roughly $8 billion less than the request.

This funding level is not adequate to address the myriad of issues that we face around the world, including from an increasingly aggressive Russia. Just last week, a Russian destroyer came dangerously and recklessly close to one of our vessels in the Philippine Sea.

Shortchanging defense funding would send the wrong message to our adversaries. Let's be clear: We do not want a fair fight. Funding the Department to ensure our advantage against any threat is the best deterrent to war.

In addition to the low funding levels in the bill, it includes a number of troubling provisions adopted in committee, including a new restriction on the Department's ability to provide lawful assistance to other agencies in combating the real crisis on our southern border.

We cannot continue to ignore the reality along our southern border. The sheer numbers of people coming across our borders, in the hundreds of thousands, now require the use of military bases to house migrants.

The situation is untenable, and the Congress must update our immigration laws to make the process more rational and enforceable. Restricting the President's ability to address the crisis will only make the problem worse and put more people at risk as they embark on a dangerous journey.

I am also concerned with the language striking the Authorization for Use of Military Force. This provision would repeal the current authorization 240 days after enactment. This is a serious topic that needs to be debated by the authorizing committees. Including this language in an appropriations bill with little debate and no committee hearings or witnesses is not the correct way to address this matter. Broadcasting to our enemies the stop date of any military operation is reckless and irresponsible.

Then there is the issue of numbers. In divided government, bipartisanship is essential. Unfortunately, until we reach agreement on the top-line spending levels that the President will also support, I remain concerned that the Defense funding bill will be crafted in an environment in which we have no budgetary certainty. Without a top-line budget agreement, and a 2-year deal with the House, the Senate, and the White House to relieve the budget caps put in place by the Budget Control Act, we are not making spending decisions based in reality.

If we cannot come to an agreement on a budget caps deal, we face sequestration in the coming year. The impacts would reverse all the progress on readiness and modernization we have achieved over the last 2 years. Sequestration would cut $20 billion from the Navy and $29 billion from the Air Force, and it would stop 100 Army programs.

We need all the parties to come together at the table now to make the tough but critical budget decisions. We know all too well how devastating budgetary ambiguity and continuing resolutions can be for defense planning and the real-world impact it has on training, readiness, and quality-of-life issues. That is a recipe for disaster for both our military and the American people.

That is why I cannot support this bill at this time. I want to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to develop bills for fiscal year 2020 that meet our Nation's defense and border security priorities in a fiscally responsible manner.

Given the chairman's nature, I am sure that he will be an able partner and leader in any effort to strike a budget agreement and certainly happy to help avert sequestration.

Finally, I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. I appreciate their diligence.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a public servant and American patriot, Blake Butler, who passed away suddenly on May 3, 2019 at his home in Yerevan, Armenia. Today I ask that the U.S. House of Representatives join me to honor and remember the life of Blake Edward Butler.

Blake Butler joined the U.S. Department of State in 2009 as a U.S. Foreign Service Officer. In 2018, he began his tour as the Human Resources and Financial Management Officer at U.S. Embassy Yerevan. From 2015 to 2018 he served as the Assistant General Services Officer at U.S. Embassy Buenos Aires where he led the team that provided logistical support to 14 different U.S. government agencies and close to 400 employees. Blake's other assignments included General Services Officer at U.S. Embassy Baghdad; Environmental, Science, Technology and Health Officer at U.S. Embassy Paris; and Vice Consul at U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince. Prior to joining the Foreign Service, he worked as a civil service employee for the Department of State as a budget analyst and in the office responsible for the President's foreign travel. He was the recipient of multiple Department Superior Honor and Meritorious Honor Awards. In addition to his service with the Department of State, Blake valiantly served in the U.S. Army's Reserve from 2001 to 2011 and was deployed overseas on multiple occasions.

Blake was the loving husband of Sara Hurst Butler, who previously worked in my office, and the proud father of Everett Ian Butler. Blake received his BA from Baylor University and his MBA and Master's in Health Administration from Texas Woman's University.

As we look at the incredibly rich history of our country we realize that this history is comprised of men, just like Blake, who chose a life of public service. I am grateful for Blake's service to our country and my thoughts, prayers and deepest condolences goes out Blake's wife, son, parents and brother. There are no words that can relieve their pain and what words I offer only begin to convey my deep respect and highest appreciation. I hope they know that the goodness Blake brought to this world will always be remembered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2030, the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act. The Colorado River is a critical source of water for approximately 19 million people in the southern California region. After 19 years of drought on the Colorado, Lake Mead is near critical levels. If no action is taken, it is estimated that by 2021, Lake Mead could reach critically low elevations where basic reservoir operations and water deliveries become impossible.

We are here today because of the tremendous leadership of the seven Colorado River Basin States, the water users throughout the basin. Traditionally, the shared water resources of the Colorado River have been managed through consensus and collaboration, and the drought contingency plan, or DCP, is no exception.

Water users throughout the basin agree to voluntary conservation measures that protect existing water rights in order to protect the water supplies of Lake Powell and Lake Mead for the foreseeable future.

I want to commend the bill's sponsor for working to ensure that the Salton Sea is protected under this legislation. DCP was developed with input from stakeholders throughout the basin, including water users, Tribal leaders, and environmental groups. California holds the senior water rights in the lower basin. In the short term, though, California may have the most water security during this historic drought, but water leaders in my region recognize the importance of protecting Lake Mead now to preserve southern California's long-term water supply reliability.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend a special thanks to Jeff Kightlinger for his tireless efforts on behalf of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to get this historic deal across the finish line. If not for his work over the last several years, we would not be here today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.