Floor Statements

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

Madam Chair, I have only myself to speak, so I reserve the balance of time to close.

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

Madam Chair, we had a number of these debates last night as far as DOD resources in supporting the ICE mission at the border.

I might note, parenthetically, no Republican amendments on this issue were made in order under the rule, only Democratic amendments.

But, on the substance of the matter, I completely agree with, I think, the sentiments of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) in that I would prefer not one dollar--or one person--from DOD have to be sent to the border to support the ICE mission. We ought to fully fund border security on its own, because we have enough issues with broader national security for the Pentagon and the military to deal with.

Unfortunately, that is not possible when we don't fully fund ICE and when we have an unprecedented situation at the border. Border Patrol stations are at a breaking point. They have been over capacity for nearly all of 2019. DHS has already apprehended more than 390,000 illegal immigrant members in 2019, which is more than triple the amount of the year before.

So we have triple the number of migrants, we don't fully fund border security and ICE, and now this amendment says we also can't use DOD resources to back up.

So what is the result? The result is either one of two things: You have this humanitarian crisis that appalls us all because the resources have not been put on the border to take care of these people and process them appropriately, or you just give up border security and you just have open borders and let anything and anybody who wants to come in, come in.

Those are the alternatives if you don't provide the resources at the border that are needed.

Again, my preference is DOD doesn't do any of this. DOD has its hands full. But if you don't fully fund ICE commensurate with the number of people, the situation they have got to deal with on the ground, triple the number of migrants, if you don't fund them to deal with that situation, then that is where DOD gets called in as backup and support.

As Ranking Member Rogers mentioned last night, there are no ICE detainees in DOD facilities right now. I hope that there are not. Again, DOD has its own mission.

But you create the problem if you don't fund ICE. If you say you can't use DOD or anything else, then what happens? You have a humanitarian crisis.

I think that we need to do better. This Congress needs to do better on the whole issue of border security. That will benefit the migrants that we are talking about; that will benefit DOD; and that will benefit the country.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader.

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

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

Madam Chair, there is a train of thought, a political philosophy in the United States, at least since the sixties, that we are the problem, that the world would be a better place if we reduced our military, if we were weaker, if we did less; we are the problem.

In one political convention, Jeane Kirkpatrick called it the ``blame America first'' approach, and I think we are seeing elements of that philosophy in this amendment, because this amendment requires a bunch of studies about how we cut stuff.

Now, it doesn't really talk about, okay, what are our adversaries doing. It doesn't really talk about the challenges in meeting the security needs of our neighborhoods, how we prevent terrorists from coming to America and blowing us up, how we prevent the Russians, the Chinese from doing a variety of things, the Iranians, North Korean missiles. No, it just talks about, okay, what can we do to cut us.

And, specifically, section (a)(1)A asks for studies on options for reducing the Nuclear Security Enterprise; B, options for reducing service contracts; C, options for reducing special operations forces; D, options for reducing overseas military presence; F, options for replacing military personnel with civilian personnel. It is all about cuts.

I understand that there is that approach, but that approach has not been what has guided the broad majority of American political leadership for the last 70 years, because that approach has been that America needs to be strong. We are not perfect. Absolutely, the Pentagon is not as efficient as it should be, no question. But the idea is we should be strong and we have to pay attention to what adversaries are doing. That is not the approach that this amendment takes.

One other point, I think that Chairman Smith made a very important point a while ago, and that is one of the worst things we can do is send men and women out on missions without providing the support, the training, all that they need to, the best equipment, all that they need to perform that mission successfully.

We owe them that when they risk their lives. Yet, that is exactly what

this government, and I think there is blame on both sides, has done in the past.

The world did not get safer. We did not reduce the missions we asked them to do. Yet, the budget was cut by 20 percent. And what happened? More of them lost their lives. There are real consequences to cuts without taking into account a strategy and including what adversaries are doing.

The administration has, for the first time in a long time, a significant National Security Strategy. It is not perfect, but at least it is an approach to dealing with these things: Here is the strategy. Here are the resources we need to meet that strategy.

That is what they have given us. You can agree or disagree, but they have done that.

That is not what this amendment does. This amendment says cut. This amendment says, have America grow weaker and, somehow, the world will benefit. I don't think that is true.

Madam Chair, I am opposed to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I would inform the Chair that I have only myself to speak on this amendment. I don't know if the chairman has other speakers.

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

Madam Chair, let me start in a similar way that I started 2 days ago, and that is to express my appreciation to the staff, which has done a terrific job of wading through a ton of issues, a lot of paper, in bringing this bill to the floor.

I also want to express my particular appreciation to some unsung heroes, and those are the folks in the legislative counsel. Members and staff come up with these great ideas. Well, it takes the professionals to actually get that down on paper in legislative language in a timely way so that we can deal with it here on the floor or in committee or subcommittee, wherever it is. They do a magnificent job, and I don't think they get enough attention for the work that they do.

In addition, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Smith and to all the members of the Armed Services Committee for their commitment, for not just the work they put into it, but for their dedication and commitment to the country's national security.

There have been some inferences, and even more than inferences, on the floor that there is some sort of political maneuvering or games going on. I have not seen that in the Armed Services Committee. I believe, to a man and woman, every member of that committee is sincerely dedicated to doing the right thing for the troops and for the country's national security.

The truth is, together, we have done a lot of good work over the years, 58 straight years. In recent years, we have together grappled with the problem that we were discussing a few moments ago, a readiness crisis that resulted in the highest number of aviation deaths in 6 years last year and an increasing number of accidents.

Together, we grappled to turn the corner and do a better job. There is a lot of pride in what the committee together has done over the years.

There is concern, at least among the Members on my side of the aisle, that a lot of that progress we have made together stands a chance of slipping backward with this bill.

We have spent 3 days going through hundreds of amendments. A lot of times, we don't talk about the core of the bill. Let me give some examples of the concerns that I have about the reductions in authorization in the underlying bill that make a real difference.

For example, the underlying bill cut $295 million from aircraft carrier procurement, leading to a 1-year delay in the construction of the next carrier. We need 12 carriers. We have 11. We are on a path to nine. As a result of this bill, we are going to delay by another year getting another carrier.

It cuts $155 million from fast inshore attack craft mine countermeasures. Within the last 2 days, we have had some of these small boats in the Persian Gulf threaten British tankers, yet this bill cuts $155 million from the sort of thing that deals with that.

A lot of us are concerned about what the Russians and the Chinese are doing in hypersonics. A number of people think they are ahead of us in a number of respects. This bill cuts $20 million from hypersonic wind tunnels and infrastructure. It makes it harder for us to catch up.

This bill cuts $261 million from 5G next-generation communications. These funds were supposed to go to sites across the country to kick- start domestic innovation and explore 5G applications in military depots, seaports, and defense manufacturing. 5G is a big deal for the military, and we are competing with the Chinese especially. Yet, the bill cuts $261 million from what the administration requested.

It cuts $123 million from F-15 spares and repair parts. Twenty-eight of these aircraft are grounded today. The average age of the fleet is 35 years. Yet, this bill cuts $123 million from the spare parts to get those planes flying again. I think that is a mistake.

The bill cuts $42 million for a missile defense test that was approved, on a bipartisan basis, for the SM3 Block 2A missile.

It cuts $376 million from next-generation OPIR, which is the new satellite constellation to help warn against missile threat.

Specific, concrete things--these are not numbers out of the air. These are specific things where Members are concerned that it leads to sliding backward on readiness or not making the progress that we need to make when it comes to our adversaries.

That was the bill coming out of committee. Then, as we have heard, the bill took a disturbing turn on its way to the floor. I won't repeat the numbers about the Rules Committee. The statistic that concerns me the most, frankly, is that, of the amendments made in order that were contested--in other words, there was a debate; there was a difference of opinion; it was not agreed to--of those amendments that were made in order, one was a Republican amendment, Mike Turner's amendment on low- yield nukes. That was the only Republican opportunity to shift the bill in a different direction.

Then, Madam Chair, I note that the Armed Services Committee has put out a press release that is titled ``Democratic Priorities in the FY20

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its present form.

Madam Speaker, this motion is the last opportunity to amend the bill, and it does so, of course, without delaying passage. The bill, as it was considered in committee, authorized $733 billion for defense. Thanks to the work of General Bacon, the committee added $2.3 billion for disaster aid, and then the Rules Committee added the widow's tax, Afghan visas, and other items that brought the total up to about $737 billion.

This amendment takes one more incremental step to fill essential funding gaps in the way that matters most to the troops. It restores $1.6 billion of readiness for things like repairs to F-15s of which only 59 percent are flyable today, and it restores money for training, the things that matter most in saving the lives of our men and women. It restores $308 million to the personnel account. Now, that is not as much as the Pentagon asked for, but it does take it up to the level that passed the Senate by a vote of 86-8.

Finally, it provides a 4 percent pay raise for the troops.

Now, remember, Madam Speaker, the current underlying bill does nothing for pay. The formula is as it is, and those Members who have claimed the underlying bill did something have gotten three Pinocchios over it.

Well, this underlying measure does do something. It provides a 4 percent pay raise to help with recruitment and retention and to send a message to our troops that we value them.

Now that is it, straight up the middle, three things, you either vote for them or you vote against them.

It takes the total authorization to just about $740 billion. That is not enough in my opinion, but it is better.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), who is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, it is straight up: pay raise, restore personnel accounts, and improve readiness. It is straight up or down. You are for it or against it.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Rhode Island, and I want to agree in substantial measure with what he said about the progress that Cyprus has made both in countering Russian influence and in combating international money laundering and other issues on which we have been working with them. I do believe that, as the gentleman indicated, the embargo that has been in place since 1987 ought to be considered and looked at, and there ought to at least be considered a plan to gradually move away from that embargo if and as Cyprus continues to make progress in weaning itself off Russian weapons and the other priorities that we have with them.

What I worry about is, all of a sudden, in a total of a 10-minute debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, that we come in and say, ``Okay, the embargo is gone; what has been in place since 1987, never mind anymore,'' without really thinking through the consequences and having that plan that helps us work with Cyprus to get to a better place.

And I don't need to remind Members that this area is very complex, with a

number of actors that have intense interest in what happens in Cyprus and in the region. I am not saying that we don't move in that direction, but I am saying, to come here with a 10-minute debate and say, ``Okay, never mind what we have done since 1987'' is fraught with danger.

So, for that reason, I must oppose this amendment. I appreciate the progress that is being made. I think it is important to look for ways to build on that progress, but for us to come in and say, ``Oh, never mind; we are going to upend something that has been in place for so many years'' would be dangerous.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I simply want to make two points.

One is that the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control is supposed to meet with her Russian counterpart on this issue next week. What are we doing? We come to the floor, and we want to tie her hands. We want to restrict her ability to negotiate with the Russians. That doesn't make any sense to me.

There has been discussion about flaws in the treaty, how it has not kept up with changes in technology. Yet the House wants to come and say, ``Well, we think we ought to extend it anyway,'' giving the Russians a benefit that they don't have to give anything up for.

It may be that we come to a point where we think extending New START makes sense. The Russians ought to participate in that as part of a negotiation, not a unilateral move for us.

Secondly, I have to note more broadly in this bill that when New START was ratified, part of the agreement was, yes, we will go down to a lower number of nuclear weapons, but we are going to put increased investment into the nuclear weapons complex to make it more responsive, because with lower weapons, if something goes wrong, you have less margin for error.

This bill before us cuts the requested funding from the nuclear weapons complex. It cuts funding requested for the Minuteman III replacement. It cuts in a variety of ways our attempt to have a strong nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Chair, it seems to me the studies that have been conducted make it clear that it makes no cost sense to try to extend the life of these missiles that have been in place for so long.

I think what is really at stake here is whether the three legs of the triad upon which our defense has depended for so many decades are to be renewed, modernized, and remain credible.

Each leg of that triad, the submarines, the air leg, and the missiles that we are talking about now, have unique characteristics. It is the three of them working together that has been so successful in making sure that our country has been protected and that no nuclear weapon has been used since the end of World War II.

It is essential to modernize the land leg base of our triad to make sure that it stays credible, modern, and safe. That is why this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that, in January of this year, the independent Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation, which is part of the Department of Energy's NNSA, provided a report and an objective analysis of this program. Everything that they reported was that the program remains on budget as expected for the first production unit by fiscal year 2025.

I think what has happened is that they have a greater opportunity, a greater need, to spend more money from 2019 to 2020 than they originally planned. Now, that can occur for several reasons.

Number one, a program can start to move a little faster so you can make good use of money. Unfortunately, what sometimes happens is once you start looking into some of these very old warheads, you discover problems that need some resources in order to deal with those problems.

Now, we can't really talk on the floor about the specific concerns with any particular warhead today because of classification. But the key point is, the overall funding program has remained consistent and perfectly within the guidelines of what was planned originally.

Again, I am afraid that this amendment, like the last one, is delayed by study. We can study things to death,

but we have not done what we should to renew the three legs of the triad and the weapons which constitute our nuclear deterrence, and upon which our security depends. We have basically reached the point where we have no margin for error. We have to move ahead with submarines, we have to move ahead with the new bomber, we have to move ahead with the Minuteman III replacement, and we have to move ahead with the warhead replacement, not only to make sure they work, but to make sure the people around them are safe. That is the crucial point.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of speakers over the course of the last 2 days talk about that this bill provides a pay raise. I just want to clarify that it does not.

There is an existing formula which provides the military a 3.1 percent pay raise. If we do nothing, they still get a 3.1 percent pay raise.

Now, in the past, sometimes the Obama administration, for example, recommended a lower pay raise. Sometimes in Congress we have enacted a higher pay raise than the formula would require.

But the key point is 3.1 percent is what the formula is. This bill does not change that in any way. If the bill passes, if it doesn't pass, the pay raise still goes in.

I think the Speaker just indicated that she supported the amendment we are discussing now. Let's be clear. The bill before us cuts $17 billion from the President's request. The amendment before us cuts another $16 billion from that.

So all the folks who have come here and said it is not too much, it is not too little, it is just right, they have to vote against this amendment because this cuts an additional $16 billion.

What is the effect of this $16 billion? It decimates counterterrorism operations around the world. All of this cut comes from operations and maintenance within the OCO, the overseas contingency account. That means we do not do as much to fight terrorists overseas.

It hurts our ability, as another example, to train and help the Ukrainians fight the aggression that is occurring on their soil. Lots of people talk about standing up to the Russians. This amendment takes away the biggest factor in Ukraine that is helping push back against the Russian-backed insurgents. It decimates support for the Afghan security forces.

Whether you think Americans should be there or not, we are trying to help you. Afghans defend themselves. This amendment takes that away.

Real consequences in the real world, I think this amendment finally gets to where the direction of this bill is headed. Members should oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz).

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

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

Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers other than myself, and I reserve the right to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, for some years now, there have been some people in the country who go around ginning up concern that Americans are going to be whisked out of their beds at night and taken to Guantanamo and left there indefinitely.

This sort of scaremongering has been used to call attention to themselves. It has been used to raise money.

As Chairman Smith noted, we have had some debates on this issue in the past. It had kind of died down when everybody realized that 18 years after 9/11 it hadn't happened.

Yet, there are still some out in the countryside who try to frighten people that, well, it could someday. Well, actually, it can't.

Let me read three provisions, starting with the FY 2012 NDAA that said, ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.''

Now, that says nothing here affects any right of U.S. citizens or those captured or detained inside the United States. That was part of the law to begin with.

Another part of the law to begin with says, ``The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section . . . does not extend to citizens of the United States.''

Well, we passed that in 2012. There were some concerns, so we come back the very next year and have a rule of construction that has been passed and signed into law.

It says that:

Nothing in that law or in the AUMF shall be construed to

deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or deny

any constitutional rights in a court ordained or established

by Article III of the Constitution for any person in the

United States when detained pursuant to an AUMF and who is

otherwise entitled to such writ or rights.

So, we have belts, suspenders, ropes, pretty much anything you can think of, to make sure that no one inside the

United States, no U.S. citizen's constitutional right is affected. And it hasn't been. For 18 years this has not been a problem.

So, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is not a problem now, that it is not something that we need to tinker with, especially with so many court decisions that have interpreted some of the legal issues related to detainees.

In fact, we should push back against attempted scaremongering and reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our Republican leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Riggleman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers on this en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I have no speakers here at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, the last speaker made a comment that this is the first time in many years that House Democrats have an opportunity to put their priorities on a defense bill. I realize the gentleman is new to this body, but that statement is simply not true.

Last year, the House Armed Services Committee reported the bill to the floor by a vote of 60-2. There were more Democratic amendments made in order under the Rules Committee last year on the floor than there were Republican amendments. The bill passed the House with 351 votes.

It has been a hallmark of the Armed Services Committee to work in a collaborative way and to give every member of the committee and, ultimately, of the House the opportunity to make an imprint on the nature of this bill.

The reason I have to take a moment is just to contrast that with what has happened this year. Both the vote coming out of committee and the fact that of the contested amendments--in other words, of those amendments where there was some disagreement, some debate, and a potential vote. There were about 60 Democratic amendments, and there was exactly one Republican amendment.

That limits the ability of the minority to shape the outcome of the final bill. So the gentleman's statement has led me to want to emphasize the difference this year versus prior years. I think it is too bad, but I hope that at some point in this process, we can return to that collaborative process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of Chairman Smith about the bipartisan contributions in the past, and that was the primary point I wanted to make.

I do disagree with him about one key point. It was certainly never my intention, and I do not believe the intention of any member of the Armed Services Committee, to oppose this bill from the beginning.

As a matter of fact, as I indicated yesterday, for many of us, it was a very challenging decision on how to vote with the bill coming out of committee, not because there weren't serious, substantive disagreements--there were--but there was hope that it was possible to bridge those disagreements so that there could be some bend on both sides to get to our traditional sort of bipartisan vote on the floor.

What definitely changed and is unprecedented is to have one substantive, contested Republican amendment allowed on the floor--one-- versus 60 Democratic amendments. Those numbers speak for themselves. There has been, other than the one amendment on low yield--Mr. Turner yet to come--no other opportunity by Republicans on a contested issue.

There have been en blocs, Republican and Democratic, absolutely. That is the way it is every year. But as far as standalone debates where it is contested, there has been one opportunity for Republicans to improve this bill. That has been disheartening because it makes it much more difficult for people on this side of the aisle to get to where we can support this bill.

I share the chairman's commitment. This is not about us. This is about the troops. Our commitment is to work through every step of whatever it takes to get to a point that we can do good by the men and women who serve. That is the objective here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Spano).

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

Madam Chair, I have no speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have no speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have only myself to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

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

Madam Chair, I am very sympathetic to the idea that Congress has neglected to fulfill its responsibilities under the Constitution in this area for many years, with Presidents of both parties and with congressional majorities of both parties.

Unfortunately, I believe that this amendment goes way too far in restricting the ability of the President to exercise his responsibilities under Article II.

I note that one of the most recent speakers referenced President Obama. It was President Obama who used force in Libya with no authorization from this Congress. As a matter of fact, every President since Truman has done so. The notion that it is either all-out war or nothing does not reflect the way the world is or has been for the last 70 years.

I also have to note that it is somewhat concerning to me that much of this amendment seems focused personally at President Trump, who is bending over backward not to use military force and has campaigned against some of the uses in the past. It does not seem to me to be appropriate.

On the substance of the amendment, we have asked senior general officers with responsibility for operations on the Joint Staff and CENTCOM to look at this language. What they tell us is that they are concerned with this language. I understand the representations that have been made, but the people who have to live under it believe it would foreclose the inherent right of self-defense at a time when we have specific, detailed, and credible threats against 65,000 military personnel in the CENTCOM region. They believe it would immediately stop purely defensive intelligence-sharing and defensive border security we are doing with partners in the region. They believe it would halt orders with options to strike back proportionally against Iran in order to limit escalation and would stop active information- related capabilities directly countering Iranian threat networks.

Furthermore, they believe that there is enough concern about this language that it would at least throw doubt on our ability to come to the defense of Israel if it were under attack from Iran, Iranian proxies, or the Iranian threat network. They believe it would cast doubt on our ability to come to the defense of a ship or vessel in the Strait of Hormuz if an ally comes under attack.

I would point out that just within the last 2 days, an allied tanker was at least threatened by Iranian boats coming through the strait.

Senior general officers at the Joint Staff and CENTCOM believe it would threaten continued Seventh Fleet interdiction efforts in the Indo-Pacific to thwart Iranian sanctions evasion.

We have a number of ways that are not war but legitimate use of force.

People who have to live under it believe this goes too far and prevents them from doing what they are doing, which gets back to what Mr. McCaul was talking about. That is, this is only good news for Iran and the threat that they pose.

It uses a powerful funding mechanism to tie the President's hands, and they can only be untied after the House and Senate take action. We know that we often don't move too quickly in these areas.

Again, I am sympathetic with the idea that Congress needs to stand up and do our job. We need to do it responsibly, not the kind of overreach that gives assistance to adversaries and makes our allies much more concerned about whether we will stand with them or not.

Madam Chair, I believe this amendment should be rejected, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Khanna, Gaetz, Engel, Smith (WA), Brown, Levin (MI) and me, along with 80 other cosponsors, to prohibit funding for any engagement in military hostilities in or against Iran without explicit authorization by Congress.

I want to thank my good friend, Congressman Khanna, for his leadership on this issue. I especially want to thank Armed Services Committee Chairman Smith, Foreign Affairs Chairman Engel and their excellent staff, who worked tirelessly to ensure that this amendment reflected a broad, bipartisan range of concerns on how best to respond to the relentless march to war with Iran that is happening under President Trump and his bellicose advisors.

Madam Chair, our nation almost went to war with Iran just a couple of weeks ago.

Think about this. We were apparently only moments away from the president launching an attack against Iran that could have quickly snowballed out of control into a major conflict. There was no consultation with Congress. No debate on this floor. No input at all from this House whose Members represent the servicemen and women who would be put in harm's way. Let alone 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 in Iran.

But this president was apparently about to use an AUMF passed nearly two decades ago to fumble us into another conflict in the Middle East.

I'm glad the president backed off bombing Iran. But I'm terrified about the lack of thoughtful leadership coming from the Oval Office.

We need to make clear to this administration that the president cannot use an old AUMF to initiate hostilities against Iran.

Nor can he engage in military hostilities in or against Iran without first coming to Congress and getting a specific authorization for the use of such force. Period.

It's long past time for Congress to step up to the plate and carry out its constitutional responsibilities on matters of war and peace.

I urge all my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Halupka for his outstanding contributions as a United States Air Force officer for his more than 22 years of service. In May 1997, he received his Bachelor of Science from Auburn University in Auburn, AL where the Auburn University ``Flying Tigers'' Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps commissioned him into the U.S. Air Force as a nuclear and missile operations officer. He then joined the 10th Missile Squadron at Malmstrom Air Force Base leading some of America's most important strategic nuclear deterrence forces as a missile combat crew commander. After advanced training in space operations, he transitioned to a space operations officer and was assigned as a defensive counterspace flight commander at NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, in Cheyenne Mountain where he was in charge of protecting America by providing early missile warning and space object detection.

Branching out, he was selected to deploy to Afghanistan to set up a new training command for the Afghan National Army. His efforts yielded clear results with the Afghan Army meeting their training requirements to fight the Taliban. Returning to America, he took on the role of director of operations for missile warning at Beale Air Force Base, boosting U.S. and Allied awareness of space by tracking nearly two million space objects. He then took his accumulated knowledge to work as a space and counter-space senior advisor and analyst embedded with the State Department, where his advice and analysis informed some of our nation's most important strategic foreign policy decisions.

In his relentless pursuit of excellence, Lieutenant Colonel Halupka dedicated his free time to pursue additional educational opportunities, earning a Master of Science in Business Management in 2006, and a Master of Arts in International and Security Studies in 2012 from the Naval Postgraduate School.

Lieutenant Colonel Halupka concluded his career serving as a congressional liaison at the Defense Intelligence Agency. It was during this last assignment that I had the opportunity to get to know Nick. His tireless efforts ensured members of the House Armed Services Committee received timely and critical intelligence that was crucial to informing lawmakers during both moments of crisis and everyday legislative operations. These efforts supported the creation of many bills and enabled the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. I am personally thankful for the time he has devoted to this task and the vigor and professionalism with which he executed it.

I thank Lieutenant Colonel Halupka for his dedication in service to the security of our nation. While many pursue careers in military, Lieutenant Colonel Halupka viewed the military not as a job, but a calling to service. He is in the less than one percent who serve in the nation's military, and an even smaller percent who give their full service until retirement. The United States owe him a great debt of gratitude.

Madam Speaker, I honor Nicholas A. Halupka for his lifetime of public service. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him a happy retirement as we celebrate his legacy of selfless service to the nation.

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 continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, on Thursday, June 27, 2019, I was unable to be

on the House floor and missed roll call votes No. 426 ``Adoption of H. Res. 466--The rule providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3401--Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019,'' No. 427 ``Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 2722,'' No. 428 ``Passage of H.R. 2722--Securing America's Federal Elections Act,'' No. 429 ``Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3401--Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019,'' No. 430 ``Approval of the Journal.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``YES, YES, NO, YES, YES,'' respectively.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, I was unable to be in Washington and missed roll call votes No. 403 ``Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 460--The combined rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2722--Securing America's Federal Elections Act and of the bill H.R. 3351--Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2020,'' No. 404 ``Adoption of H. Res. 460--The combined rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2722--Securing America's Federal Elections Act and of the bill H.R. 3351--Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2020,'' No. 405 ``Banks (R-IN)--Amendment No. 251--Reduces amounts made available in Division E, Other than amounts made available to the Department of Defense by 14 percent,'' and No. 406 ``Jayapal (D-WA)-- Amendment No. 268--Reallocates $1,000,000

to fund transitional housing and homelessness services.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``NO, NO, YES, NO'' on these bills, respectively .

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, I was unable to be in Washington and missed roll call votes No. 411 ``King, Steve (R-IA)--Amendment No. 3--Strikes the section 126 of the underlying bill which prohibits the use of funds from the Department of the Treasury's Forfeiture Fund to plan, design, construct or carry out a project to construct a southern Border Wall or barrier along the southern border of the US,'' No. 412 ``Norton (D-DC) Amendment No. 4-- Prohibits funds made available by this Act from being used to relocate the National Institute of Food and Agriculture or the Economic Research Service outside the National Capital Region,'' No. 413 ``Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 3401,'' No. 414 ``Passage of H.R. 3401-- Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``YES, NO, YES, NO'' on these bills, respectively.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, I was unable to be in Washington and missed roll call votes No. 407 ``Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 3055,'' No. 408 ``Passage of H.R. 3055--Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2020,'' No. 409 ``Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 462--The rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 3401--Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019,'' No. 410 ``Adoption of H. Res. 462--The rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 3401--Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``YES, NO, NO, NO'' on these bills, respectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a sense of Congress resolution that makes no change whatsoever in law or policy. It is a messaging bill rather than legislation that actually does something on a substantive issue.

So, one may ask, why bother opposing a bill that doesn't do anything? I have a couple answers.

Part of the answer, to me, is that we normally do not bring isolated issues in the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee to the floor.

Part of the reason that a national defense authorization bill has been signed into law every year for 58 straight years under Presidents of both parties and Congresses of both parties is that we try to look at national security as a whole as it relates to the Department of Defense. There have been a few isolated instances where something needed immediate attention, but, generally, we try to look at the whole, not bring isolated issues to the floor. I worry that doing so, even with a messaging bill, undermines that bipartisan approach that has been so successful.

Another part of the reason, Mr. Speaker, is that we also normally try to keep our troops above and beyond politics. Bringing a messaging bill that does nothing to law or policy also threatens to undermine that, and I worry about that.

On its face, the resolution, the messaging bill that is before us, includes a number of statements that are just flat wrong. It says that President Trump reversed the prior policy on transgender individuals in a tweet. In fact, well before any Presidential tweet, Secretary of Defense Mattis had put a delay on implementation of the policy that had previously been announced so that there could be a 6-month review. There was a 6-month review with experts, with uniformed and civilian people from all the services, with medical experts, with a whole variety of folks.

It is serious and thoughtful, despite some of the characterizations that have been made from time to time. I recommend that Members actually read it, because I think they will be impressed. They may not agree with all of the recommendations, but they will see the serious and thoughtful approach that the Department took to this issue.

As a result of this review, the previous policy was modified. It didn't go back to the way it was. Again, those details are in the report.

The resolution before us today says that the Mattis policy is a ban. It is not. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found, on January 4, 2019, that it is factually inaccurate to call it a blanket ban. In reversing the lower court, the court of appeals said: ``The district court made an erroneous finding that the Mattis plan was the equivalent of a blanket ban on transgender service.''

This resolution before us says that there is a global medical consensus on transgender care. But the World Professional Association for Transgender Health says that they offer flexible clinical guidelines that cannot possibly reflect all the differences and situations which exist.

Mr. Speaker, turning to the substance of the matter for a second, to me, the heart of the issue is contained in the very first sentence to the Department report, which was issued in February 2018. The first sentence says: ``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.''

Any eligible individual who can meet the standards without special accommodation should be permitted to serve. That is what I believe, Mr. Speaker. I think that is what this policy attempts to achieve.

Now, it is a fair point to say it went too far this way or it didn't go far enough this way. We can have those substantive, serious debates at an appropriate time and place. But a messaging bill is not going to get that job done.

I would say, finally, Mr. Speaker, that our committee heard the day before yesterday a reminder that only 29 percent of Americans aged 17 to 25 are eligible for military service. Only 29 percent meet the physical, mental, and legal requirements to be eligible for military service, even if they want to. That means 71 percent are not eligible, for whatever reason.

There could be, and maybe there should be, a debate that the standards are too high, that we need to lower the standards, that we need to make some changes in the standards so that more people are eligible. But the point is, our view of military service is that anyone who meets those standards should be allowed to serve. If someone

cannot meet those standards, for whatever reason, through no fault of their own, then they are not able to serve. They can serve in a different way, but not in military service.

I think, again, Mr. Speaker, if we were to really be discussing the substance of the issue rather than a messaging bill, then we could talk about the high standards for military service without special accommodation and there would be a substantive discussion. That is not what we are doing today. It is a messaging bill, and that is too bad because there are serious issues that need to be discussed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair whether the gentleman from Washington, the chairman, has any further speakers other than himself.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the current House leadership seems rather consumed by Presidential tweets. As a matter of fact, just a few moments ago, the Speaker of the House, herself, was one of those Members who had to be reminded that it is a violation of the rules of the House to disparage the character of the President.

I guess we could do this every day. The President could tweet, and we would have a sense of Congress to comment on it, and the President would tweet. But generally, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a higher and better purpose for this House to work on the

problems that confront the American people.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, this is a messaging bill. It changes no law. It changes no policy. It could also be done down in the House radio-television correspondents' gallery. Somebody could give a speech, and there could be a press conference. It would have the same effect as having this resolution on the floor.

I don't have the time to correct all of the misstatements in the resolution or that have been made on the floor today. I will say this, Mr. Speaker: If we are going to do messaging, then my primary message is that every individual who serves our Nation in the military is entitled to respect and our appreciation--every single individual--and I am among those who are very impressed, by the way, by the transgender individuals who testified in front of our Military Personnel Subcommittee just a few weeks ago.

But on the substance of this issue, I believe the principle for the Department of Defense is that any eligible individual who can meet the high standards for military service without special accommodation should be permitted to serve.

Any eligible individual who can meet the standard without special accommodation should be permitted to serve.

I think that is the standard. That is not exactly what we have been talking about today, but that is the standard, and it should be the standard.

There may be some differences about what a special accommodation is, about various medical diagnoses and conditions. I understand that. But the standard is, if you meet the standard without special accommodation you should be permitted to serve.

And those who serve deserve our respect and our appreciation. That is the point. But that is not really the point of this resolution.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, this resolution is misguided, and let me take a few moments to illustrate some of the reasons.

Number 1, as the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. McCaul, has described, this is a misuse of the War Powers Resolution. It conflates two different sections. It has definitional problems. I am not going to repeat all the arguments he has used.

My point is that, if we use that powerful law, it should be clear, direct, and applicable. To misuse it in this way actually weakens the authority of Congress, the exact opposite of what the chairman of the committee was talking about.

Secondly, the message coming from this resolution is, Iran, you can do whatever you want to.

Now, it is clear we do not have troops in the fight against the Houthis. We do, however, want other countries to join in trying to constrain Iran's aggression in various parts of the world. But with this resolution, we are saying, Okay, you are on your own. We are not going to assist you in any way. And that message reverberates throughout the Middle East. It will have lasting consequences.

Third, if anything, this resolution will make our military more cautious when targeting ISIS and al-Qaida.

Now there is a section in here that says, Well, it doesn't really apply when you are going against terrorists. But Yemen is a messy place. You have individuals commingled in the same location. Sometimes the same individual can have multiple loyalties.

Our military will be overly cautious in interpreting this resolution. They will be less likely to target ISIS and al-Qaida.

Mr. Chairman, don't forget. It wasn't very long ago the most serious threats coming to our homeland, to Americans emanated from Yemen. This adds danger to the world.

Fourth, I think this resolution makes a humanitarian situation worse. As long as rockets are fired from Yemen into Riyadh, there will be a military response.

Now, the U.S. has been assisting the Saudis in targeting, so that it is narrower; so that they are only targeting military targets and minimizing civilian casualties. And yet, this resolution says, No, you can't offer that sort of help.

So what is the result? It is going to, unfortunately, be less specific targeting, and I am afraid that the humanitarian situation will only grow worse.

Fifth, and finally, if this passes and signs into law, it will not help the people of Yemen one iota. There are lots of things we just heard from the author of the resolution, why he does not approve of some of the actions going on with Saudi Arabia. This does not help any of that.

It is an attempt to make us feel better, that we have at least done something. And yet, the result is, we reduce our influence in the Middle East; we encourage and enhance the position of Iran; and we lead to a more dangerous world for us. That is quite an afternoon's work.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 19, 2018, I was unable to be in Washington and missed roll call votes No. 436 ``Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1222--Congenital Heart Futures Reauthorization Act of.'', No. 437 ``Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6615--Traumatic Brain Injury Program Reauthorization Act of 2018.'', No. 438 ``To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the expansion of activities related to Alzheimer's disease, cognitive decline, and brain health under the Alzheimer's Disease and Healthy Aging Program, and for other purposes.'', No. 439 ``To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide grants to improve health care in rural areas.'', No. 440 ``To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a security vulnerability disclosure policy, to establish a bug bounty program for the Department of Homeland Security, to amend title 41, United States Code, to provide for Federal acquisition supply chain security, and for other purposes.'', No. 441 ``To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for an integrated planning process, to promote green infrastructure, and for other purposes.'', No. 442 ``Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6227--National Quantum Initiative Act.'', No. 443 ``To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities, easements, and rights-of-way to the Kennewick Irrigation District, and for other purposes.'', No. 444 ``To expand recreational fishing opportunities through enhanced marine fishery conservation and management, and for other purposes.'', and No. 445 ``To reauthorize the Museum and Library Services Act.''. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all ten bills.

Mr. Speaker, our nation is blessed with many hardworking professionals who work in the defense and intelligence communities, keeping our people safe and safeguarding American national security. Often they cannot talk about what they do, even among their family and close friends. And yet, some of the best and brightest in our country commit their lives to this dedicated service.

One of those individuals has unfortunately been taken away from us too soon, but her passing enables the public to get a glimpse of the critical roles she has played as an outstanding leader in our intelligence community.

Melissa Drisko most recently served as Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The daughter of a U.S. Army Officer, she graduated from University of Virginia on an ROTC scholarship and was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Navy in 1981. Her assignments in the Navy included watch officer, intelligence officer, Soviet submarine analyst, and aid to the Director of Naval Intelligence, where she met her beloved husband, Phil Kosmacki. She went on to work at the Department of State and as Flag Aide to the Director of Naval Intelligence.

Following her Naval service, Melissa continued her distinguished career as a civilian with leadership positions in several agencies including Office of Naval Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence. For the past 14 years, Melissa served at the Defense Intelligence Agency, culminating in her position as Deputy Director.

The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Ashley called Ms. Drisko ``brilliant, determined, and among the finest intelligence officers of her generation.'' A quiet and visionary leader, she encouraged others to speak their mind, always with an eye to the greater good.

Melissa was known for her intelligence, her inquisitive mind, and her integrity. Those closest to her also recognized her kindness, her quick sense of humor, and her way of being fully present in any given situation, qualities that were woven throughout her life.

While she was serving the nation as a national security professional, the center of her life was her family, as a spouse to her husband, Phil, and as a mom to their children, Alison, Rachel, and Jackson.

Like most of her colleagues in the Intelligence Community, Melissa served humbly and selflessly, directing accolades away from herself to those with whom she worked. She knew that she was part of a team, and she made that team better. The focus of that team and the professional calling of Melissa's life were to protect her fellow citizens and defend the United States of America. That is among the highest calling to which any of us can devote our lives.

Melissa passed away on November 14 after a two-year battle with cancer, which she faced with characteristic strength and dignity.

Day after day, year after year, Melissa Drisko served her country, setting a standard of excellence that made our country safer and stronger. May we all draw inspiration from this full, meaningful life well lived. And may we all use her passing to give thanks for the service of such an outstanding and dedicated professional.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 1051 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232), I hereby appoint Dr. Eric Schmidt as the individual to serve as a member of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 5, 2018, I was unable to be on Capitol Hill and missed roll call votes No. 384, ``Democrat Motion to Recommit on H.R. 1635'' and No. 385, passage of H.R. 1635, ``Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on No. 384 and ``yes'' on No. 385.