Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. House Of Representatives U.S. House Of Representatives 20240714

Precountry new narkal limitation for employmentbased immigrants to increase the per country numerical limitation for familysponsored immigrants, and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california,s. Colorado, mr. Buck, will each control 20 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. Mrs. Love gren i ask unanimous consent that address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Ms. Lofgren i yield myself such time as i may consume. Mr. Speaker, i rise today in support of h. R. 1044, the fairness for high schooled immigrants act, a bipartisan bill that would make a modest but important change to our immigration laws to alleviate hardships associated with lengthy visa backlogs. Let me begin by explaining what this bill does do and does not do. H. R. 1044 does not increase the overall number of immigrant visas that are available each year. Although raising the ceiling on visas is the only viable way to eliminate backlogs, there is in my view, unfortunately, no consensus on that issue at this time. But there is broad consensus that we should do what we can to make the system more equitable. This is the focus of h. R. 1044. By eliminating the per country limit on employmentbased visas, all immigrant visa applicants will eventually be restored to a level playing field, where ones country of nationality has no bearing on their place in line. Under our immigration laws, employmentbased visas are granted to individuals under a fivetiered preference system. The first three categories are reserved for priority workers, individuals with advanced degrees, and other professionals and skilled workers. To be eligible for a visa under one of these categories, the applicant must generally have an offer of employment from a u. S. Employer and must submit extensive documentation of their qualifications for the job and the relevant preference category. The applicants country of birth is not a factor, and rightfully so. What does a persons nationality have to do with their merit as an employee . However, country of birth does become relevant after the applicant has qualified for a visa and is waiting in line for a visa number. The socalled per country limit prohibits any one country from receiving more than 7 of the immigrant visas that are available each year. Because of this, the visa backlog has thus high demand for visas such as india. As a result, it can now take a decade or more for an indian physician working in a medically underserved area or a physicist with a ph. D. From m. I. T. To receive a green card. How is this good for our country . Our immigration system is in desperate need of reform. We all know too well the plight of dreamers and the undocumented population. We know now more than ever that our agriculture sector, which relies heavily on immigrant workers, is struggling to satisfy its labor needs and provide a safe domestic food supply. Were reminded daily of the concern we have of the situation unfolding at the border. On top of these very real and serious issues, we also remain inextricably bound by the imperfections of an immigration framework that was formulated nearly 30 years ago and is out of touch with the needs of the 21st century. Major reforms are required to truly fix our outdated legal system, but as we all know, each such reforms have been hard to come by for a long time. If we want to get anything done, if we want to do whats right for our country, we have to find Common Ground and we have to compromise on an issue as contentious as Immigration Reform, working in a fully bipartisan fashion can only result in legislation that will go nowhere in the senate. H. R. 1044 is one of those rare proposals where we can agree. 1044 has strong bipartisan support with more than 200 democratic and more than 100 republican cosponsors. In 2011, the house passed a version of this bill by a margin of 38915. I urge all of my colleagues to once again vote in favor of this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. Thank you, mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this important legislation, the fairness for highskilled immigrants act. I want to thank my colleague, the distinguished chairwoman from california, ms. Lofgren. Ive appreciated working with you to make a meaningful change that will make our employmentbased immigration system into an equitable system, one that is based on merit, not where you are born. Mr. Buck i want to tell you why this bill has a special place in my heart. Two years ago as i was traveling through my district i met with a group of individuals who were here legally but felt they were being put at a disadvantaged by our nations immigration policies. They were resolute that i and congress, more broadly, could change their futures for the better. As we sat together, my new friends shared their stories of coming to the United States with a great sense of hope. They came here for any number of reasons, but every Single Person arrived seeking a new opportunity to succeed and realize their own american dream. During our conversation, we talked about a bill but what we were really discussing is these individuals hopes and dreams for a future that is bite brighter because of this legislation. Our immigration policies are leaving these people stuck between a rock and hard place. They made up the difficult decision pock packing up and leaving to work in the greatest country of the world but know these same people found themselves cut in a decades long backlog to receive a green card, waiting to open their businesses creating jobs. There are approximately 1. 5 million highskilled immigrants living in the United States on an employmentbased visa. Theyre working hard and paying their taxes, yet, face decades long wait, sometimes up to 70 years to receive a green card. Worst of all, congress created this state of limbo by instituting an arbitrary annual cap on the number of individuals who may receive a green card from any single country. This system doesnt make sense. Our employmentbased immigration system has a single purpose bringing in the best and brightest. We shouldnt hamstring our economy by placing artificial caps on who can get a green card quicker based solely on where youre born. As the Cato Institute and National Reviewpointed out, we arent considering the countries sorry we are considering the countries have different population sizes. India has a population 2 1 2 times greater than the European Union but has an employmentbased green card cap thats 4 of the European Unions cap. This policy is not helping to develop our highskilled economy. Additionally, the department of labors own statistics show they are depressing the average wage for employer sponsored immigrants by 11,500. These depressing wages are hurting American Workers and hindering further economic growth. We shouldnt be punishing highly skilled individuals who come to this country legally. People who do everything the right way and are only seeking an opportunity to work hard contribute to the u. S. Economy and support their families. We should be celebrating this and helping to create an equitable system that benefits both u. S. Companies and employmentbased visa holders. Im happy to say thats exactly what this bill does. The fairness for high skilled immigrants act creates an equitable system that eliminates the arbitrary per country caps on employerbased green cards and replaces it with a first come first serve system. This important change will free u. S. Companies to focus on what they do best hiring smart people to create products, services, and jobs in our districts while ensuring all employmentbased visa applicants are evaluated on their merit, not where they come from. Mr. Speaker, its Time Congress fixes this policy once and for all. 70year backlogs are only going to dissuade talented individuals from coming to the United States and further hamper our economy. We need to create an equitable system that helps our businesses and is fair to the individuals who came here looking to achieve their own dream. To live and work in the greatest country in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and the back legislation, end the back logs and make our system first come, first serve, not based on where youre born. Thank you, and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from california, my colleague, congressman khanna, two minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Khanna thank you, mr. Speaker. I want to thank my good friend and esteemed chair of the judiciary subcommittee on immigration for moving this bill to the floor, representative lofgren has worked tirelessly for years to get us to this point. Im proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. Put simply, this bill is good for American Workers and its good for the american economy. For too long people in this country have been unable to get a green card simply based on where they were born. As a result, people have been stuck on visas and we all know that foreign outsourcing firms have abused these visas. They are underpaying, people are stuck on these visas and its depressing american wages and its hurting American Workers. The solution is to stop corporations from abusing the visa system and to move people on to green cards. Once we do that, american wages will go up. These companies will no longer be able to hold people in indentured servitude and force American Workers to have cuts in their wages. So, anyone who is for american rkers, who believes that the h1vb visa program is being abused, who wants to stand up for a path for American Workers to get the wages they deserve should be for this bill. If you oppose this bill, youre actually supporting the abuse of the visa process. I want to thank again representative lofgren for her leadership and i yield back the balance of my time. Ms. Lofgren i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. The gentleman from colorado is recognized. Mr. Buck thank you, mr. Speaker. I recognize for two minutes my friend from utah, mr. Curtis. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from utah is recognized. Mr. Curtis mr. Speaker, im proud to rise in strong support for this act. In recent years utah has witnessed incredible growth in our tech and innovation sector. Bringing thousands of jobs and strengthening our economy. However, everywhere i go i hear from Business Leaders that they do not have enough highskilled workers. Even as we work to strengthen Stem Education and bolster the number of homegrown engineers and programmers, the demand continues to outstrip the supply. Current limitations in our immigration system are forcing talented engineers who have trained in our universities to remain on temporary visas or leave entirely for competing countries, while important jobs go unfulfilled back home and Economic Opportunities are lost. This legislation will create a first come, first serve system, providing certain toy workers and families certainty to workers and families and enabling companies to flourish and compete in a Global Economy as they hire the brightest people to create products, services, jobs, regardless of where they were born. As these companies expand, operations with greater input from highskilled workers, they create countless more american jobs. Mr. Speaker, with the debate around our broken immigration system growing increasingly challenging in recent years, ive been thrilled to see this bipartisan groundswell of support around this effort. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I yield my time. Mr. Buck i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from colorado reserves. The gentlelady from california is recognized. Ms. Lofgren mr. Speaker, im pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. Krishnamoorthi. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Krishnamoorthi mr. Speaker, i rise today in strong support of h. R. 1044, the fairness for highskilled immigrants act. Im proud to be an original cosponsor of this Bipartisan Legislation with over 300 cosponsors. I want to thank chairwoman lofgren for her excellent leadership on this legislation, which will end discrimination based on National Origin in our employmentbased immigration system and strengthen our economy. Our Current System limits the number of employmentbased green cards to 7 per country. Regardless of population. As a result, highskilled workers from certain countries face backlogs of upwards of 70 years, while applicants from other countries go to the front of the line. Thats not fair. This legislation ensures that all highskilled visa applicants have an equal opportunity to contribute to American Economic development, regardless of their country of birth. Many highly educated and highskilled workers who come to this country on temporary visas in the Tech Industry and other sectors raise their children here, are a part of our communities, pay their taxes, and want the opportunity to become lawful permanent residents. This legislation helps keep Families Together and it helps american businesses retain top talent, growing and making them more prosperous. Mr. Speaker, it is long overdue that we end the discriminatory percountry cap on employmentbased visas. I urge my colleagues to support this Bipartisan Legislation, i absolute the bipartisan cooperation salute the bipartisan cooperation between chairwoman lofgren and congressman buck, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from colorado is recognized. Mr. Buck thank you, mr. Speaker. I recognize my friend, mr. Collins, and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, for four minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes . Four minutes, im sorry. Mr. Collins thank you. I appreciate the gentleman from colorado and also the gentlelady from california. Mr. Speaker, i rise today and im in reluctant opposition to h. R. 1044. This is not something i would like to be. But this bill could be better. In fact, its not going to do what it said it will do. And that is a problem. Current law states that nationals of one country can serve more than 7 of an employmentbased green card allotted each year. H. R. 1044 removes the 7 cap, effectively moving the employmentbased green card categories to a first come, First Service basis. Ok. Thats fine. The bill also raises the current annual cap on familybased green cards to 15 . Ok. But to be clear, i agree with the concept of eliminating the percountry cap. I think there should not have been a cap from the onset of this. But congress did not place the limit on green card issuance, as a result theres been an extremely large backlog of nationals from certain countries who have approved green card petitions but whose green card is not available and will not be for several years. So i understand the desire of many, including the distinguished lady from california, who i have Great Respect for in this field, and also my Ranking Member, and many others who have signed onto this bill. But i believe many people who signed on to this bill signed on to a bill that would actually be put together and actually be able to work. They did not sign on a statement bill that will not be title of the bill work and in which the agencies have already said they cant. Before anybody says that theres 300plus cosponsors, remember, this Congress Also took up a bill called ecba which had almost 400 cosponsors but still went through the process of actually being changed and marked up. Which is a distinct difference in this bill. So just because you have a lot of cosponsors doesnt mean always that its right and can still be perfected. In fact, its wrong to tell communities that this bill will help them when in actuality it wont. This is the problem i have. The bill was introduced in february, it was placed on a consensus calendar last month and now an suspension calendar today. Neither the subcommittee for this full committee had a hearing to look at this issue in this congress or any potential ramifications of the legislation. And the committee did not mark up this bill. So those of us who support the intent but have concerns about the factual text have no opportunity to formally hear from agencies affectd by this legislation or even outside groups and individuals affected. When my colleagues took over they promised regular order. This is not regular order. Especially with a bill of this importance. Lack of process is a big concern of mine. But even more troubling is the standard provisions of the bill and how they are not only ambiguous at times, but unworkable. I will give you some examples. Section 2e1 of the bill states that during implementation transportation period, visas should not be biven given to some that are not one of the two states with the largest aggregate numbers. What does that mean . How is the uscis supposed to interpret it . Does it mean the largest number from the time the green card were first issued or Something Else . I know that previous versions of this bill have tied such transition to specific fiscal year but the language here is ambiguous and is based on interpretation by the agencies that could have very different ramifications. In fact, the agencies have said they dont know how to interpret this. The agency who will be in charge of this said, we cant do this. That should ring true with every member in this body. More concerning, however, is section 2e4 which pretends to ensure that aliens with currently approved green card petitions are not adversely affected by lifting of the cap. The bill states that the visa shall be allocated such that no alien prescribed . Subparagraph b receives a visa later than the alien otherwise have received said visa and had this act not been enacted. But the premise of the bill and the idea that approved aliens cannot be adversely affected is not true. Either the visas are first come, first serve, or theyre not. And the agencies that would have carry out this legislation would not be able to move people up in line to comply with the first come, first serve, while at the same time ensuring visas for already approved beneficiaries are taken care of. There are finite number of visas available every year. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Buck i yield another minute to my friend from georgia. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for another minute. Mr. Collins so thank you, mr. Speaker. So its he will luck reluctant that i stand here against a bill that i inherently agree with the speakers that have spoke already, i agree with. The speakers who have going to come forward, i agree with you. Except for one thing. Dont promise something to groups of people that you cant deliver on. We cant deliver with this bill. We have an opportunity to say no right now, fix this and come back and have a unanimous vote. But dont send a bill just because it makes us feel good and were promised to somebody. This is not my issue with this bill. My issue with this bill is that its not right. Not ready for primetime and its definitely not ready for extension calendar. We need to make it right. I think the chairwoman has done a great job in trying to get it there. I believe my Ranking Member wants to work it and i am willing to, as i expressed to the chairwoman as well, to make this right. This is not the time, even though we have a lot of cosponsors, if the cosponsors would simply read the bill and understand the problems with the agency and then go back to the communities advocating for this, they cannot look them in the eye and say, this is your fix. As i have said many times from this floor before, in the last six months, mr. Speaker, what makes you feel good doesnt often heal you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from colorado reserves. The gentlewoman from california is recognized. Ms. Lofgren mr. Speaker, i would yield two minutes to the gentlelady from washington, ms. Jayapal. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from washington is recognized for two minutes. Jay allen thank you so much, mr. Speaker ms. Jayapal thank you so much, mr. Speaker. Let me first thank our wonderful immigration subcommittee chair for her tremendous work over the years on all issues related to imgration. And for her leadership on this particular issue. I am very proud to rise in strong support of h. R. 1044, the fairness for highskilled immigrants act, to provide relief to thousands of families who have been waiting for decades on employment visa back logs. Among indian nationals, the wait is upwards of 70 years. And i also want to thank the Ranking Member of the immigration subcommittee for his support as well. This is a truly bipartisan bill. Because these long backlogs are a result of our broken, outdated immigration system, and they are affecting states across the country. Despite the high demand for employmentbased green cards, the system hasnt been updated in nearly 30 years. This bill solves one piece, by making sure our colleagues and our neighbors who have been working in our tech sector and our hospitals, innovating in our communities, can stay with a road map to citizenship. Mr. Speaker, our work is not done. We cannot tolerate the fact that we have no orderly functioning process for people to come to america, whether it be for family unity, to bring their talents to our economy, to serve the needs of our economy, or to seek safety. And this bill and the fact that we have 300 cosponsors on it reminds me of another time when there were 68 bipartisan votes in the United States senate in 2013 for a comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, and i deeply, deeply hope that as we pass this bill off the floor with bipartisan support, that we can get back to the place where we can once again agree on a bipartisan basis that comprehensive Immigration Reform benefits our country, benefits our future and is absolutely necessary. So thank you so much again, chairwoman lofgren, for your fierce determination and your years of service, and i look forward to passing this bill off the floor of the house. And i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from california reserves. The gentleman from colorado is recognized. Mr. Buck i would note, mr. Speaker, one of the reasons i am so proud to support this bill, in is not an amnesty bill. Its based on merit. It even further enhances the merit aspects of this program and i am proud to sponsor this bill and i am proud to yield four minutes to my good friend from the state of washington, mr. Newhouse. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from washington is recognized for four minutes. Mr. Newhouse thank you, mr. Speaker. I want to thank my good friend from colorado for yielding. Mr. Speaker, fixing our broken immigration system has been a top priority of mine while i have been in congress. Today, we in the house have an opportunity to address one small piece of our broken system but a very important one. Im proud to be an original cosponsor of the fairness for highskilled immigrants act. This Bipartisan Legislation takes an important step toward ensuring the United States can continue to recruit and maintain the highest caliber of educated professionals in the world. As youve heard, under current urrent law, the quota of iceland with a population of 338,000 people is the same as the quota for india, which has a population of over 1. 3 billion people. Eliminating arbitrary per country caps and addressing the green card backlog from highly populated countries will allow highskilled professionals, many who are already living and working in the United States on a temporary visa, to continue contribute more fully to our local communities and economies. It will also provide certainty to the employers and communities who rely upon these highly skilled workers. Mr. Speaker, in my district, many of these highskilled professionals are worldclass medical scientists, including oncologists and cardiologists. Ive heard from and met with many of these professionals, just like mr. Buck from colorado has, but throughout my state in central washington. Dr. Ready and her husband, dr. Chithuri, came to the United States in 2006 to study medicine. My bularedy serve constituents in yakima. And she states, and i quote, we always wanted to give Something Back to this great country. Hence, we decided to move to Rural America, which is experiencing an acute shortage of physicians for a long time now. This shortage is more severe for specialists like me. She and her husband and many like them also dream of opening businesses to create more american jobs but their temporary status does not allow them to do so. These two doctors are from india and have been told the backlog wait time for them to obtain their green cards is between get this, mr. Speaker between 70 and 150 years. This demonstrates just how seriously flawed the Current Program is and why we need this legislative fix. We should continue to recruit and retain these highly educated, highly trained individuals in order to meet the demands of our local communities and economies. The need for Rural Health Care specialists is a problem across my district and across Rural America, which is why i am grateful for these professionals are helping address this problem facing our local communities. As i continue to work toward addressing other components of our broken immigration system, i am proud that this bill takes a step in the right direction, and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you and i yield back. Mr. Buck i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from colorado reserves. The gentlelady from california is recognized. Ms. Lofgren i yield myself such time as i may consume. I do want to address the points made by the Ranking Member of the full committee. You know, this bill has been around a while. It was introduced in 2011. At that point we did have a hearing and even a markup. Weve had it on the floor before. We have at this moment 312 members on the bill, bipartisan, addressing the issue he was reading, and i dont think its confusing. The department of state is actually the agency that allocates the priority dates. They keep track of the visas, and we have communicated with them frequently over the years, we provided in this bill a transition period because as time has gone on, the delays have gotten even worse for large countries. So we wanted to put a transition period in. Thats what the section that he read about would do. We do think that this has become an emergency in some sectors. I recently met with a physician and his wife whos also a physician who are here on h1b visas and they have been for many years. They are serving an underserved community. Their children, who are here legally, as dependents of this, are about to, quote, age out which means they have not been back to the country of their birth in who knows how long. They dont speak the language. They dont have anybody in the country of their birth, and they are about to be out of status even though they played by all the rules. That physician, those two physicians told their patients that they were going to close their practice and move to canada because they just couldnt go on like this. Thats not a situation we can count on. Thats happening all over the country. We need to fix it. This bill does fix it, and i hope we can support it and i would reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from colorado is recognized. Mr. Buck we have no more witnesses at this time, and i am prepared to close if the gentlelady is prepared to close. Great. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Buck thank you, mr. Speaker. Today, congress can create a truly fair and equitable employmentbased immigration system. This bill will fundamentally hange our system by ensuring employers can hire employees on qualifications and ability to do the job, not country of origin. We must continue to work build the u. S. Based highskilled workforce, but in the meantime, we simply do not have enough u. S. Workers to fill our employment needs. Congress must address this system to ensure that we are not welcoming highskilled workers here and then promptly leaving them in limbo that may last a lifetime. Its time we fix the system to create a meritbased, first come first serve system thats fair for all employmentbased immigrants. Mr. Speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from california is recognized. Ms. Lofgren thank you. I would like to thank the Ranking Member for the excellent work hes done on this bill and the collaboration that weve had on bringing it forward so it could be considered today and the tremendous bipartisanship that has been exhibited throughout in dealing with this question. Going back, you know, nearly 10 years of work on this. I just note that the vast majority, way over 90 of employmentbased immigrants whove been sponsored for green cards are already working in the United States on some form of temporary visa. This doesnt bring in additional people. These are people already here, and the question is, are they going to be able to get the stability that legal permanent residents permanent residence provides . If they do it will be good in several ways. Theyre contributing to our economy, whether its physicians serving in an medically onserved area or a scientist breaking new ground or whether theyre h1b nurses who are serving in underserved areas. Further, we know from the studies that people who are legal permanent residents are not vulnerable for those who might be abusing employers trying to suppress their wages. This is good for American Workers as well as those who would gain Bargaining Power by gaining legal permanent residence. I hope we can have a great deal of support for this bill today. I want to thank all of the cosponsors and those who worked so hard to get us here today. And with that i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady yields back. The question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h. R. 1044, as amended. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, 2 3 having responded in the the gentleman from i request a recorded vote. The speaker pro tempore does the gentleman request the yeas and nays . I request the yeas and nays. The speaker pro tempore all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. A sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Mr. Ohalleran mr. Speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass h. R. 1569. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk h. R. 1569, a bill to amend title 28, United States code, to add flagstaff and yuma to the list of locations in which court shall be held in the judicial district for the tate of arizona. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from arizona, mr. Stanton, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, each will control 2340eu7bs. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Stanton mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and nd their remarks and the speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Stanton and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Stanton mr. Speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman. Mr. Stanton i rise in strong support of h. R. 1569, a bill unanimously supported by our entire arizona delegation that will amend title 28 of the u. S. Code to add the cities of flagstaff and yuma to the list loafcations in which Federal District court can be held in my home state of arizona. The code is outdated and has not been amended since it was enacted in 1948. It is preposterous that right now District Court matters can only be held in globe, phoenix, prescott and tuesdayon. That means yuma and flag and tucson. That means that yuma and flagstaff must go 100 miles to attend a hearing or report for jury duty. Thats totally unacceptable and unnecessary. A pillar of the United States structure of democracy is for all americans to have access to the courts, whether that is by literal location or by reducing cost barriers. We are weakening that pillar when residents must drive over 100 miles for their day in court. Access to justice should not be dictated by where you live. I am proud to support this legislation because it will have a tremendous impact on the residents in these parts of arizona. I urge my colleagues to support it and i hope the senate acts swiftly and delivers h. R. 1569 to the president for his signature. It is time for arizona to have a more efficient and Effective Court system. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my ime. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from arizona reserves. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Speaker. I agree everything what the gentleman said. These locations are different. Since 1948 the state of arizona has changed and i would encourage everyone to vote yes on this bill and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Stanton thank you. I yield to the gentleman from arizona, congressman ohalleran, the sponsor of this bill, for as much time as he may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from arizona is recognized. Mr. Ohalleran thank you, mr. Speaker. Id like to thank chairman nadler and Ranking Member collins for moving this bill through the Judiciary Committee. Similarly, i would like to thank all the Committee Members for supporting the bill on a unanimous voice vote. This legislation has a bipartisan and bicameral support of the arizona delegation. This simple, commonsense legislation allows current federal judges to sit in existing courthouses or magistrate chambers in yuma and flagstaff to rapidly growing communities that constitutes constituents do not have full access to the federal judicial system. By allowing existing judges to sit in yuma and flagstaff, residents of rural arizona will not have to travel the significant distances they currently do to phoenix or tucson to be heard by a judge. This will mean that Police Officers can spend more time on patrol, individuals wont have to travel to serve on juries or to participate in matters that require a judge. Easier access to courthouses will help tribal nations that are under significant federal jurisdiction. This will only further support tribal sovereignty. This legislation is a simple way to improve life for residents of Rural America and i encourage all of my colleagues to support house bill 1569 and i yield. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from arizona is recognized. Mr. Speaker, i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman has the only time remaining. I have no further speakers and i am prepared to close. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. I want to thank the congressman for his leadership on this important legislation and also want to thank chairman nadler for working with me in advancing this bill through the House Judiciary Committee. Its going to make a positive difference to arizonans and i thank Ranking Member collins as well for his support. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h. R. 1569. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, 2 3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid n the table. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass senate bill 998. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk senate 98. An act to amend the omnibus crime control and safe streets act of 1968, to expand support for Police Officer family services, stress reduction and Suicide Prevention and for. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california, ms. Bass, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, will each control 20 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. Mr. Bass i ask unanimous consent that all members have ms. Bass i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include material on the bill under consideration. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Ms. Bass i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Bass mr. Speaker, i rise in strong support of s. 988, the supporting and treating officers in crisis act of 2019, also known as the stoic act. This bill would provide important Mental Health and Suicide Prevention services to Law Enforcement officers and their families. Specifically it would modify an existing but expired authorization providing support to Law Enforcement officers families to add Mental Health and Suicide Prevention programs directed at officers themselves. Additionally, s. 988 998 would also reauthorize the Family Support provisions and would appropriate up to 7. 5 million for each fiscal year from 2020 to 2024 to carry out both the family and Law Enforcement officer Mental Health programs. The Law Enforcement officers this Grant Program would assist all too often face dangerous and horrific challenges, which take a hard toll on them and often their families. Too frequently local resources are not readily available or accessible for these purposes. S. 998 would bridge this critical gap. Seeking help is often the hardest step to take to address ones Mental Health issues. It can be especially difficult for Law Enforcement officers because of the stigma against it within the Law Enforcement community, and too often still in a society as a whole. The aim of this legislation is to help overcome this reluctance by destigmatizing Mental Health treatment in the Law Enforcement community. Provisions in this legislation encourage recipients of Grant Funding to set up Suicide Prevention hotlines. These life lines are a critical step for getting those officers who need it the assistance they require and thereby help address the nationwide tragedy of officer suicide. The impact of onthejob stress is not limited to the Law Enforcement officers, however. The underlying expired Grant Program, which this program which this bill reauthorizes, permits recipients of Grant Programs from marital and adolescent support groups. This whole family approach to Mental Health services is essential for retaining officers. It is often said that the departments recruit officers and retain families. Family support programs such as those authorized in s. 9998 provide critical 998 provide critical support that gives officers on patrol. Lastly, included in the reauthorization is the ability for recipients of this grant to provide child care on a 24hour basis. This provision furnishes mustneeded support to singleparent officers, many of whom are women. The bureau of justice statistics reports that there are over 100,000 female Law Enforcement officers nationwide. Child care programs as authorized in this measure help promote familyfriendly workplaces and facilitate the employment of more female officers. Is 98 is identical to 998 identical to another bill, a bipartisan measure sponsored by our House Judiciary Committee colleague, the gentleman from pennsylvania, representative, with the support of the gentlelady from pennsylvania, representative dean. I should also note the Judiciary Committee passed the house bill by voice vote last month. Accordingly, i support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, i yield i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Speaker. As a son of a state trooper, also as someone who served as a chaplain to Police Agencies and also those in our first responders, this is a very important bill to me. I cannot think of a better member from our side of the aisle who has supported this and also the chairwoman and others. Guy is a champion of this from his service days and his background. It is a pleasure to yield as much time as he may consume to the lead author on the republican side of the stoic act. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Reschenthaler thank you, mr. Speaker. Id like to thank my colleague from georgia and Ranking Member, doug collins. I rise today, mr. Speaker, in support of senate bill 998, the Senate Companion to this Bipartisan Legislation that i introduced with congresswoman dean that will address the Mental Health needs of our nations Police Officers. Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities. Last year the tree of life synagogue was under attack, the Pittsburgh Police and police from around the region ran into open gun fire to stop a deranged, hateful madman intent on killing as many worshipers as possible. Were it not for the heroic efforts of the police that day the tragic loss of life could have been much worse. Across the country we sleep safely in our beds each night because our Law Enforcement officers of our Law Enforcement officers. But the critical work that these men and women undertake does not come without a cost. According to the National Study of police suicides, Law Enforcement officers are 2 1 2 times more likely to die from suicide than homicides. Studies show that Police Officers have above average stress levels that lead to posttraumatic stress, Heart Disease and high blood pressure. So despite all they do for our communities, the federal government provides few resources to address the consequences of theiring work. The stoic act is a of their taxing work. The stoic act is a bipartisan piece of legislation that will reform and expand an existing Grant Program to better address the Mental Health and needs of our Law Enforcement, most importantly as it relates to Suicide Prevention. Im very grateful to senator hallie and the white house for their work to get this bill through the senate. I would also like to again thank Ranking Member doug collins and chairman nadler for prioritizing this important piece of legislation. Most importantly, id like to thank my friend and fellow pennsylvanian, congresswoman dean, for her tireless work to improve Mental Health treatment for Police Across the country. Throughout this entire process, congresswoman dean has shown tremendous appreciation for Law Enforcement officers and great concern for the wellbeing of themselves and families of Law Enforcement officers. Its truly been a pleasure to work on this bill with congresswoman dean. So i ask my colleagues to support the stoic act today. Its time for to us take care of those who take care of us. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from georgia reserves. The gentlelady from california is recognized. Ms. Bass mr. Speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, madeleine dean. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized. Ms. Dean thank you, mr. Speaker. I thank chairman nadler and chairwoman bass and my colleague and friend from pennsylvania for their efforts in moving this important legislation forward. Every day our Law Enforcement professionals don their uniforms, show up for work and take on the extraordinary responsibility of keeping you us safe. Its keep us safe. Its work that too often goes unnoticed or underappreciated. A kind of quite heroism. But that quiet heroism. But that work can also exact a very heavy toll. The stoic act responds to the growing emergency in the Law Enforcement community. Study shows that Law Enforcement officers face a wide range of stressers, including responding to violent crime, managing crisis situations, and, as 77 of officers report, dealing with insufficient departmental support for their mission. This stress has serious consequences. Studies indicate that one in four officers report stressbased physical Health Problems and one in 14 meet the criteria for pst. Ptsd. Think about that. Just showing up for this important workplaces our Law Enforcement professionals at increased risk for a wide range of Health Problems. Suicide among our Law Enforcement community is rising at a troubling rate as well. The c. D. C. Reported in 2016 that the suicide rate in this community is 50 higher than the national average. In recent years the number of Law Enforcement who have died by suicide has even surpassed the number of officers killed in the line of duty. According to blue health, we lost 142 officers to suicide in 2016. Last year that number jumped to 167. Compared to 144 who tragically lost their lives in the line of duty. Officers in crisis need our support. The stoic act, both the senate and the house version, will reform and expand existing Grant Programs to better address Mental Health. Establish Suicide Prevention programs. And offer aid to officers families. Our Law Enforcement officers are true Public Servants and they honor their service and we honor their service means providing them with the support they deserve. I want to thank my colleague, fellow pennsylvanian, congressmans remain chen that willer, for speaking with one voice. I thank you for your passion, your leadership on this bipartisan bill. It has been a pleasure to work with you and your team on an issue we both care deeply about. I look forward to our continued efforts and urge all members to support the stoic act. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Speaker. I would inquire of the gentlelady from california, im ready to close if you are. You have another speaker . Then ill reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentlelady from california is recognized. Ms. Bass mr. Speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentlelady from texas, Sheila Jackson lee. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Jackson lee i thank the gentlelady and i thank the two cosponsors, the gentleman from pennsylvania, the gentlelady from pennsylvania, for a very Important Initiative that not one of us have unfortunately not heard of one of our Law Enforcement officers in recent years, in recent times in recent months committing suicide. That incident has occurred in my own community and it is clearly important to be able to provide this extra support. Supporting and treating officers in crisis act of 2019. The stoic act. It is crucial because it also impacts these families. These officers every day deal with such catastrophic incidences. In my own community weve seen six little children killed over the last couple of months. The individuals who arrive first to the scene are Law Enforcement officers and theyre moms and dads with children. And i imagine or cannot imagine the impact that those scenes, those crime scenes have day after day after day on these officers who have joined the force to do good and to help people. We often say when we call 911, were looking for the men and women in blue. And were looking for them to strengthen those families that are broken or in crisis. This particular act would revitalize the d. O. J. s Grant Program for Law Enforcement family services, in addition to allocating funds to establish Suicide Prevention, stress management and Mental Health programs. We know that just as our military men and women face the devastation of ptsd, members of our nations various Law Enforcement agencies work to protect us, also experience posttraumatic stress disorder. This program to enhance the grants that departments can secure will be able to step in the gap and work with families and also deal with the question of those experiencing mental illness, where posttraumatic stress disorder can come in the form of depression, burnout and other Mental Health related issues and anxiety. We know that over the years suicides have increased, but in 2017 an estimated 140 officers died from suicide, which exceeds the 129 that were killed in the line of duty. As we are working on the Law Enforcement trust and integrity act which will improve policing, working on professionalism, and working with the 18,000 Police Departments across america, i cannot imagine waiting to pass this legislation to reignite the granting program or the Grant Program to be able to help those who are now presently suffering. Im glad this is a bicameral initiative. I hope this will move quickly to the president s desk to sign. I hope those funds will get to the Houston Police department, the Harris County sheriffs department, constable offices and various offices across america. A healthy Police Officer, physically and mentally, is the best Community Relations you could ever have. A healthy officer who works with children, who works with communities, who works with families, and shose up when the civic shows up when the civic club that asks them to speak about security in the neighborhood, we hope that will be the kind of officer that will come to work every day. These Grant Programs will ensure that and most of all, id like to close by saying, for those Law Enforcement officers who are many times former military personnel and committed to the idea of service, go and get help. Were standing ready to help, and these Grant Programs will allow police kepts, cities, counties, Police Departments, cities, counties, states to put in a strong response to the needs of our Law Enforcement and to thank them for their service. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the entlelady yield its back. The gentleman from california reserves. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. Mr. Collins ready to close. Mr. Speaker, its a great bill. Ou heard the accolades the gentlelady from pennsylvania made that case clear. I ask everybody to support it. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia yields back. The gentlelady from california is recognized. Mr. Bass the tragically high number of Law Enforcement professionals who take their own lives each year is a serious problem that must be addressed. According to blue help, an Advocacy Organization that works to reduce Mental Health stigma in the Law Enforcement community, 167 Law Enforcement officers committed suicide in 2018. By comparison, in the same year, 144 Law Enforcement officers died in the line of duty. S. 998 will help Suicide Prevention assistance to Law Enforcement officers in need. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady yields back. The question is will the house suspend the rules and pass te 998 not as amended pass senate 998. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, 2 3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition . Ms. Bass mr. Speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass senate 744. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk senate 744, an act to amend section 175b of title 18, United States, to correct a scriveners error. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california, ms. Bass, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, each will control 20 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. Ms. Bass i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include material on the bill under consideration. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Ms. Bass i yield myself such time as i may consume. I rise in support of s. 744, the effective prosecution of possession of biological toxins and agents act of 2019. A bill that would correct an error that has been unintentionally resulted in an incomplete list of biological toxins and agents prohibited under current law. This legislation will help ensure the safety of our citizens and the security of our nation. S. 744, which the Senate Passed by unanimous consent earlier this year, is identical to h. R. 1986, which the House Committee on judiciary recently approved by voice vote last month. In 1990, Congress Imposed criminal penalties with respect to the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agents, toxins or Delivery Systems intended for use as a weapon. Thereafter, congress in 2001 added section 175b to title 18 of the u. S. Code criminalizing the possession by unregistered individuals or restricted persons of certain biological agents termed select agents as determined by the secretary of health and Human Services. A person found guilty under section 175b can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. As originally enacted and thereafter in subsequent amendments, thereto, section 175b referred to specific sections of the code of federal regulations that listed various biological agents and toxins. That provision was last amended in 2004, but subsequently, the department of health and Human Services added sections of the code of federal regulations and inadvertently rendered the references in section 175b incomplete. For example, one of the select agents inadvert vently eliminated is ricin, a poison founded in castro beans. Ricin is inexpensive, easy to make and highly toxic. The consequence of a drafting error is clearly not what congress intended. Unfortunately, there have already been reallife consequences for this error. Last september, for instance, the District Court for the Northern District of georgia dismissed the indictment of William Christopher gibbs, a selfavowed white supremist that was charged with the unregistered possession of ricin. In dismissing the gibbs indictment, the court stated it appreciates the potential dangers associated with individuals possessing toxins without permission to do so. The court takes seriously that citizens ought to have a fair and clear warning of the conduct for which they could be held criminal responsible. It falls to congress to write criminal laws or to amend them if they yield unfair or unwanted results. The rule on the courts, on the other hand, will not change laws. As we consider s. 744 today, its important to recognize and commend the sponsor of the house companion, the gentleman from texas, and our Judiciary Committee colleague, representative john ratcliffe, and judiciary Ranking Member, doug collins, as well as the gentlelady from new york, representative kathleen rice, and the gentleman from texas, representative will hurd, for their bipartisan efforts to address this critical problem. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of this h. R. 1986 because it fixes a technical but error that occurred in the code and the gentlelady from california, again, did a wonderful job explaining the case. She brought up the Northern District of georgia, my district, and rick storey is one of the best jurists and his comment here is telling, and for many times in congress we need to take heed, Congress Needs to amend laws. This needs to be added. It was a scriveners error in the mistake it was not there, needs to be corrected. With that, again, the gentlelady from california has been a great help on this. The gentleman from texas, mr. Ratcliffe, and others, for work on this legislation. As we go forward, i think this has been a good process. Im glad to see it come into fruition. With that i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from california is recognized. Mr. Bass mr. Speaker, without question, congress should do everything within its power to ensure the safety of all americans. Clearly, the possession and distribution of ricin is dangerous and should be included among the various biological toxins prohibited under current law. As congress had intended. S. 744 corrects this technical error and addresses the serious consequences presented by this oversight. For these reasons, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting s. 744, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady yields back. The question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 744. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, 2 3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition . Ms. Bass mr. Speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h. R. 677. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk h. R. 677, a bill to amend gendered terms in federal law relating to the president and the president s spouse. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california, ms. Bass, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, each will control 20 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. Ms. Bass i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include material on the bill under consideration. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Ms. Bass mr. Speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. Mr. Speaker, there will be a time in this country when the president of the United States will have a husband and not a wife. In preparation for that day, i urge the house to suspend the rules and pass h. R. 677, the 21st century president act, which removes gendered terms from current law criminalizing threats against former president s and their families. Currently, we have a law that makes it unlawful to threaten, to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon a former president , president elect, Vice President elect, or a major candidate for president or Vice President or their immediate family member. The statute, however, defines immediate family with terms such as wife, her, and widow, which makes presumptions that will not stand the test of the future of this country. At present, one member of the Lgbtq Community and six women have declared themselves to be candidates for the presidency. Whether or not any of these candidates is nominated or elected, it is clear that the terminology in our law is outdated and should be changed to refer to the spouse of a former president. The words we use shape the world in which we live. We should act accordingly. I support h. R. 677 and reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Speaker. I appreciate this. I think the bill is a good bill. It does exactly what it needs to do and clarifies for the future and would encourage everyone to vote yes and yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from california is recognized. Ms. Bass mr. Speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. Pocan. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Pocan thank you very much, mr. Speaker. Thank you to the representative for the time. The current field of president ial candidates looks more like American Society than ever before. We are closer than ever to the possibility that a woman or lgbt person could hold the countrys highest office. We have decades of activism by women and the Lgbtq Community to thank for this fact, and at least congress can do is ensure the law recognizes the progress our country has made. Weve come a long way from 1872 when victoria woodall became the first woman to seek the presidency decades before women won the right to vote. Today, six women, more than ever before, are running for president. Almost 100 years after the passage of the 19th amendment and thanks to trailblazers like victoria, Shirley Chisholm and hillary clinton, we are closer than ever having a woman in the oval office. Fred carter, a republican, was the first openly lgbt candidate for president. The 2020 democratic president ial field has one openly lgbt candidate. The Landmark Supreme Court lawmaking gay marriage legal means the president can have a spouse of the same sex. Currently federal law does not reflect the reality we could have a female or gay president as soon as 2021. Todays bill updates federal law to reflect the possibility of a female or lgbt president by replacing gendered terms like wife and widow with spouse. It also replaces gendered specific pronouns, referring to the president and their spouse with gendered neutral terms. Without this change, the law that makes it a crime to threaten to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon the president or the president s family would fail to include a future president , female or gay president. The words we use matter and its critically important that the law recognizes that soon we will have a president who is not a straight man. I would like to thank the chairman, the Ranking Member, and all the members of the committee for their support of the support of this bipartisan bill. I ask my colleagues to support the 21st century president act, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. Ms. Bass i yield to the gentlelady from texas, five minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Jackson lee let me thank the gentlelady for yielding and let me thank the sponsor of the legislation 21st century president act. And i wanted to affirm congressman pocan for the leadership he has given to an issue that many might not Pay Attention to and the term is appropriate, the 21st century president act which deals with criminalizing acts of threats against former president s and their families and providing security for those individuals that may be impacted. The xample, h. R. 769 after assassination attempt on then president Ronald Reagan makes it unlawful to threaten, to kill, kidnap or inflict bodily upon a former president , Vice President , president elect or Vice President elect or a family member. In the terminology, the terms are wife, her and widow, which presumes that the president of the United States will always be a man, and spouse will be a woman. We are fortunate to have a number of wonderful americans running who are who will be having the opportunity to serve. Many women that are running and certainly individuals from Lgbtq Community will be in the future in the mix for president of the United States. I thank the gentleman from wisconsin for bringing us into the 21st century and being enthusiastic about ensuring the safety and security of those who may be running as candidates and those who come from the wide vast diversity of america. It is time for the language to change to annuity tral or refer to the partner of the president of the United States and also important that we update our laws to welcome enthusiastically the idea that america excitingly will have an opportunity to elect a unique and different person to the presidency of the United States, competent and qualified and able to serve. I rise in support of the 21st century president act and make sure that the language speaks to the idea of the new and the exciting opportunities for this great country. I yield back. And i thank the the gentleman from wisconsin and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. Ms. Bass it is essential we update our statutes as necessary. H. R. 677 does that. It amends current law so it is more inclusive and reflective of our society. I thank the gentleman from wisconsin for identifying this problem in the law and introducing this bill to rectify. This will take this law into the 21st century as the title suggests. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure and i yield back. Ism the gentlelady yields back. The question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h. R. 6 7. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, 2 3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Proceedings will resume on the questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order. Ordering the previous question on the House Resolution 476 and the amendment thereto, adopting the amendment to the house esolution 476, if ordered, adopting House Resolution 476, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules and pass h. R. 1044. First electronic vote will be conducted as a 15minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9, rule 20, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as fiveminute votes. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the Unfinished Business is the vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 476 and the amendment thereto on which the the yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will report the title of the resolution. The clerk house calendar number 35, House Resolution 476, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h. R. 2500 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to describe military personnel strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes and providing for consideration for motions to suspend the rules. The speaker pro tempore the question is on ordering the previous question. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a 15minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this , the yeas are 233 the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 232 and the nays are 197. The previous question is ordered. The question is on adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Mcgovern. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Madam speaker. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Woodall i ask for a recorded vote. The speaker pro tempore a recorded vote is requested. Those favoring a recorded vote will rise. A sufficient number having isen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 234 and the nays are 197. The amendment is adopted. The question is on adoption of the resolution as amended. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The resolution is not adopted. The gentleman from georgia. Mr. Woodall madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. The speaker pro tempore a recorded vote is requested. Those favoring a recorded vote will rise. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes y electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of epresentatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote on this vote, the yeas are 234, the nays are 197. The resolution is adopted. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Pursuant clause 8 of rule 20, the Unfinished Business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from california, ms. Lofgren, suspend the rules and pass h. R. 1044. As amended. On which the yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will report the title. The clerk h. R. 1044, a bill to amend the immigration and nationality act to eliminate the per country numerical limitation for employment based immigrants, increase the per country numerical based immigrants and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 365, the nays are 65. 2 3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. For what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . The speaker pro tempore without objection. The speaker pro tempore the chair lays before the house a communication. The clerk the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. I write to respectfully tender my resignation as a member of the committee on education and labor. It has been an honor to serve in this capacity. Signed, sincerely, francis rooney, member of congress. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the resignation is ccepted. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition . Madam speaker, i bidirection of the House Republican conference i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the resolution. The clerk House Resolution 481, resolved that the following names members be and are hereby elected to the committees of the House Resolution. Committee on the budget, mr. Kevin hern on oklahoma to rank immediately after mr. Norman two. , committee on education and labor, mr. Keller. Three, committee on oversight d reform, mr. Keller. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. For what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition . Madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h. R. 962, the born alive survivors protection act and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. The speaker pro tempore under guidelines consistently issued in section 956 in the house rule and manual, the house is constrained not to recognize the. Equest gentleman has not been recognized for debate. For what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition . Mr. Smith i ask unanimous consent that member may have five legislative days to insert extraneous material on h. R. 2500 the speaker pro tempore without objection. Pursuant to House Resolution 476 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h. R. 2500. The chair appoints the gentleman om texas, mr. Cuellar to preside over the committee of the whole. The chair the committee is in the whole house for the consideration of h. R. 2500 which the clerk will report by title. The clerk a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes. The chair the bill is considered read. The chair is recognized. Mr. Smith i yield myself five minutes. This as always is an incredibly piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation we provide for the National Security of this country and every little bit as importantly, we provide for the men and women who put their lives on the line to provide for the National Security of this country. For 58 years we passed a National Defense authorizing act and one piece of legislation that has not failed to pass and there is a very good reason for that. It is enormously important and it is our opportunity to show those men and women that we support them and support what they do and we are going to make sure that they have all that they need to carry out the missions that we ask them to do. And one of the reasons we have been able to be successful on this is because of the strong bipartisan tradition of our committee. We have worked with various chairman and working members across the aisles and made sure we worked together regardless of who was in the majority to produce a product we can be proud of. And we have. Mr. Speaker, the house is not in order. The chair members, please take your conversations off the floor. Mr. Smith we have worked with the members of the committee and the staff to maintain that bipartisan tradition. When we had the bill in committee, we had a large number of proposals, which i will read to you. 736 proposals from republicans, 889 from democrats, we put into our bill, 5 of the republican requests and 52 of the democratic requests and amendments, more democratic amendments 266, 248 for the republicans and accepted 57 of the republican amendments. On the floor, there were a lot more amendments from the emocrats, 480201 but accepted 57 from the republicans. Most notably on nuclear issues, mr. Turner who is the Ranking Member, was concerned we werent together properly on a number of nuclear issues. There were 10, 12 or more. I reached out to him and we resolved half of them because thats what we do. This is a very strong bill that everybody on this floor should feel proud to vote for. There are a couple of issues. But the biggest thing is, remember what is in this bill. We give a very high pay raise to the men and women who serve. 3. 1 pay raise. We have included a priority that has over 300 cosponsors and that is joe wilsons bill to eliminate the offset that cuts the amount of money that goes to widows of men and women who have passed away in the military. This is the bill to eliminate that offset. There is a lot of this bill that we can be proud of. The issues we had disagreement on, we understand. But we always have disagreements. It is a large bill. I dont like everything in this bill. This supports the men and women who serve the military and make sure we have a strong National Security. The number one issue is how much money we spend. And i think there is bipartisan agreement on this. We need a budget caps deal, a continuing resolution is unacceptable for the entire discretionary budget and unacceptable for the department of defense that cant keep doing what it has been doing. Old programs they need to get rid of and new programs they need to create. The number, 733 billion was the number that the pentagon planned for over the year. After we got the last budget deal, the pentagon planned on what this their next years budget and the president and the pentagon put together a 7 3 billion at the for the year. And the president felt that number was too high. I might agree with him. There are greater efficiencies. He said it ought to be cut by 5 . A number of people went to the pentagon and said you cant cut it to 700 billion. It has to be 700 billion. That doesnt make a lot of sense. The 733 billion is the number we planned to. I will agree there is a robust debate that can be had about it, should it be 750 or 733. I support the 733 number. I dont think giving the pentagon 17 billion is fiscally responsible. I agree with the Ranking Member in the years we were cutting the Defense Budget by 20 . Is nk 7 3 billion responsible. What doesnt make sense if you dont get 750 billion, 733 billion is so bad. It is the largest amount of money we have ever spent on the pentagon. It more than funds our National Security needs. I believe this is a very, very strong bill. We will debate many, many other issues. When we get done, i hope to uphold that bipartisan tradition and we support the National Security and the men and women who are putting their lives on the line. And i reserve. The chair the gentleman from washington. Reserves. The gentleman from texas. Mr. Thornberry i yield myself such time as i may consume. 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 tasks and the different insights based on their background and perspective, it has been helpful. And i 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, its a big job. And a limited number of staff have worked very hard to get us to this point. I think maybe its helpful to 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 1 section 8 goes into specifics inputting 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 lives and death of the men and women who serve are at stake as well as the security, the safety, the wellbeing of men and women throughout the country. It is a significant responsibility and again, the constitution says its 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, 58 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 years bill, the committee reported the bill favorably by a vote of 601. The year before, it was 601. The year before that it was 602. The year before that, it was 602. Last year on final passage, the vote on this floor was 351to 66. Year before that was 38481. 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, its different. This year, the bill was reported ut of committee by a vote of 3324. And the reasons were serious substantive disagreements with provisions that were in the bill. S 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 support the brave men and women of the military who defend our country. 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 from the grouped 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 whats happened as the bill has now come out of the rules committee is, in my view, at least, unprecedented. First we start with a selfexecuting amendment or the rules selfexecutes an amendment that has a number of serious issues. A lot of them have serious support. But shouldnt 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 democraticsponsored, 98 are republican. Thats not the way its been before. Last year more democratic amendments were made on the floor than republican amendments. The year before, it was exactly even. We see the bill drifting in a particular direction. Most concerning i think in more respects, of the contested amendments, in other words, those amendments of 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 mr. Republicans, mr. Turner. Now the problem with that, mr. Chairman is, there is virtually no opportunity to improve the bill. I think chairman smith made an important point, he said it is with this bipartisan input and support, every step in the process results in a better bill and i think we have proven that time and time again. Unfortunately that is not what were seeing today. We have made a lot of progress in the last two years. As most members know, starting in 2011, defense spending was cut in real terms about 20 . 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 two years. But we havent finished the job. As a matter of fact, a study in the military times earlier this year found that military aviation accidents are increased 40 over the past five years, but military aviation accident deaths hit a sixyear high in 2018. The point is, we made a good start at fixing our problems, but we have not finished the job, and thats part of the reason that some of us are so concerned about cutting the administrations request about 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 cant seem to overcome the ways in which this bill takes steps backwards. Theres lots of things we can talk about. The bottom line, however, is theres one thing that matters. Does this bill adequately support our troops and american National Security . Theres really nothing else, no other criteria that matters the way that that fundamental question does. Im 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 that the bill will actually come closer to being adequately support our troops and american National Security, but its 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. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith thank you, mr. Speaker. Ill just say quickly. I completely agree with the Ranking Member, that the question is does this bill adequately support our National Security . I dont think thats even debatable. Theres no question that at 733 billion, with all of the bipartisan provisions that we put in there, this bill more than adequately supports our troops and supports our National Security. Thats why i think it is so wrong that even in committee the republicans have decided to oppose it. It does more than adequately support it. Now, there are things we disagree with, certainly, but i totally agree with that formulation. If you believe this bill at least adequately i think more than adequately supports it, you ought to vote for it. The only thing ill talk about the floor amendments. The republicans submitted 201 amendments. There is not a partisan effort in that. With that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new ersey, the chairman of the tactical air, land and subcommittee sorry. Its been a long time that ive talked about subcommittees. Mr. Norcross. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Norcross thank you for the work weve done, particularly under his leadership, to bring this to the floor. The bill continues that long tradition of a transparent, bipartisan work by the tactical, air, land and air subcommittee. To support the development and the delivery of capabilities that makes americas land forces the best in the world. Id like to thank our subcommittee Ranking Member, mrs. Hartzler, for her collaboration and contributions to the bill. Both she and her staff have been helpful during this entire process. It is certainly what works well here in congress. I appreciate her commitment to the bipartisan tradition we proudly uphold on our subcommittee. The subcommittee mark was adopted by unanimous voice vote, which is indicative of how important it was to both democrats, republicans, but most importantly, americans. This cooperation helped us focus on what is important, that we deliver Defense Authorization act that meets the modernization and readiness requirements of our nations air and land forces. The committee used 733 billion as a top line base on sworn testimony from military officials and the 733 billion is the amount that would give our forces a competitive advantage based on capabilities of russia and china by 2025. In fact, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dunford, said 733 billion is completely informed by the analysis conducted by the military. This goes to the heart of the conversation that were having here. Are we doing what is right . And certainly the military spelled that out in the number they provided. The research, development, acquisition of a modern Defense System recommended by our military leaders. At the same time this bill includes bipartisan provisions that increase our oversight of the departments largest, most complex and expensive programs, to protect taxpayers, support our troops, and boost the american industry. Overall, this is a thoughtful, carefully constructed bill that emphasizes aggressive, effective oversight for the development of our country. Thank you and i yield back. The chair the gentleman from new jersey yields the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. And the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, im pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentlelady from missouri, ms. Gentlelady from missouri, mrs. Hartzler. The chair the gentlewoman is recognized. Mrs. Hartzler i rise with concern of the bill, the top line budget for the department of defense thats outlined in the bill. General dunford and secretary mattis have testified that a 3 to 5 real growth in the Defense Budget top line is the minimum necessary to maintain readiness, recovery, and our Competitive Edge over peer adversaries like russia and china. Regrettably, this bill, in its current form, reduces the president s budget request by 17 billion to achieve an arbitrary lower top line. To reach this lower top line, many critical, modernization, readiness programs have funding reduced that will slow our recovery efforts. These programs include hypersonic munition development, precisionguided munitions, the air force next Generation Air dominance spares and f15 repairs parts. Im concerned we are creating conditions that could prohibit the realization of a National Defense strategy and impact our ability to project credible deterrence at a time when we need it most given the evolving threats that we now face. As the Ranking Member of the tactical air and land forces subcommittee, i would like to thank our subcommittee chairman, donald norcross, for his leadership and his bipartisanship. From a policy perspective, im pleased with the legislative outcomes the subcommittee was able to accomplish with this bill. For example, the bill rightfully recognizes the importance of fifth generation Strike Fighter capability, and also supports growing Fighter Force structure capacity through strong support for both the f15 e. X. And e35 programs. The bill appropriately provides oversight on vehicle active protective systems for vehicle and combat vehicles and funding for these needed systems. The ndaa has always been a prodetective of bipartisan consensus, and i hope that as we go forward with the floor process we can reach that level of consensus again. I yield back. The chair the gentlewoman from missouri yields back the balance of her time. The gentleman from texas reserves his time the balance of his time. Now the gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith thank you, mr. Speaker. Im pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. Langevin, who is chair of the emerging threats subcommittee. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Langevin i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. Today i rise in strong support of the f. Y. 2020 ndaa. Id like to thank chairman smith for his work on this important legislation. Im particularly pleased with the provisions in the bill that were reported out of the intelligence and emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee, which i chair. I want to also begin by thanking my subcommittee Ranking Member, ms. Stefanik, for her contributions in this bill and bipartisan partnership throughout the process. Befitting our focus on capabilities, this bill provides investments in cybersecurity as well as 5g technology and manufacturing and supports Education Programs to grow the stem workforce. Recognizing the challenges of Foreign Intelligence Services targeting academic institutions, the bill establishes a Publicprivate Partnership at the National Academies to address counterintelligence concerns while maintaining an open and Collaborative Research environment. Provisions are included also to synchronize best practices across the department relating to network, industrial base, military installation and weapons cybersecurity. We ensure the administrations more assertive posture continues to promote stability in cyberspace. There are several provisions in the bill also reflect my priority, the special Operations Forces remain professional, agile, postured for highend missions. In the threefold increase of suicides, the bill provides funding for Suicide Prevention. The ndaa places significant emphasis on ensuring the enterprise provides maximum support for requirements. It requires more rigorous reporting on the joint Artificial Intelligence center and the technical achievements of project mavin. Further, this legislation includes critical investments in our submarine fleet. I hail from the great state of rhode island, and we are deeply proud of our nations submarines, all of which start their journey being built in my district. Thanks to the leadership of congressman joe courtney from connecticut, this ndaa recognizes the unique contributions of our undersea vessels and for the first time includes a virginia class submarine. It makes investments in gamechanging technologies like electromagnetic you rail gun, positioning our war fighters to continue to dominate the battlefield for decades to come. Finally, the f. Y. 2020 ndaa makes measured investments that reflect both of our many National Security challenges and the fiscal challenges we reface. It reflects the hard choices our constituents demand on us when spending their tax dollars and makes sure those dollars are used wisely. I heard my colleagues across the aisle decry it while underfunding the military. Well, i fundamentally disagree. This is my 17th ndaa. If this bill puts our troops at risk i would be the first to say so and i would not support it. Mr. Smith i yield an additional 30 seconds. Mr. Langevin our military is the finest in the world, but there must be accountability and the Department Must live within its means. I commend chairman smith for striking appropriate balance to this ndaa, and i urge my colleagues to support it. With that i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from rhode island yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, im pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. Wittman. The chair the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Wittman thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to thank the Ranking Member for yielding. I have supported every National Defense authorization act since i arrived in congress 11 years ago. Unfortunately, in its current form, i rise in opposition to h. R. 2500, the National Defense authorization act for fiscal year year 2020. This bill does a number of good things. Notably, it includes an authorization of 11 ships. It reaffirms congressional support for midlife refueling of the u. S. S. Stennis. The reauthorization of the merchant Marine Maritime program and provides for a new Tanker Security Program that our services need. In summary, the bill did a good job with the resources that were provided. However, due to 15 billion from the president s budget request, the bill imposed limitations on lowyield Nuclear Weapons, restrictions on the president s request to secure the border, and an entirely avoidable failure to adequately restrict the 9 11 detainees. All of these issues led me to oppose final passage of the ndaa in committee. In the seapower forces subcommittee, the reduction of 15 billion will lead to delay in construction of the next forward class Aircraft Carrier by one year, eliminate replenishment, reduce the development of unmanned surface vessels, and restrict Critical Development of antimine warfare programs. Additionally, this top line reduction limited our subcommittees flexibility to address critical shortfalls in apple fib with us ships and weapons. Amphibious ships and weapons. Simply put, we can do better. While i am concerned about the entirety of this bill, i am not concerned about the bipartisan nature of our subcommittee, and i want to specifically thank chairman joe courtney and his team for their extraordinary effort in their leadership toward a bipartisan subcommittee mark. He did extraordinary work reaching out across the aisle and getting everybodys thoughts and ideas about which should be in the subcommittee mark, something that should also be part of every continuing effort subsequently. I have no doubt in his support for our National Security, and i appreciate his dedication and passion towards this effort. In the end, im hopeful our amendment debate in the following days will serve to make our bill a stronger, bipartisan bill, but in its current form, i would urge my colleagues to oppose final passage, and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith im pleased to yield two minutes to mr. Cooper, chairman of the subcommittee on Strategic Forces. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Cooper the Strategic Forces subcommittee has the heaviest responsibility because authorizing Nuclear Weapons affects the fate of the nation and the planet. I thank all our subCommittee Members and our wonderful sfaff for their hard work on this bill. The most important duty of our government is to defend the nation and the number one priority of the Defense Department is to make sure we have safe, secure, reliable and effective Nuclear Weapons. The subcommittee has a long tradition of bipartisanship on these vital issues. This bill upholds our commitment to maintaining a nuclear force. We need to strengthen and preserve the peace and prosperity that the world has known for the last 75 years. This bill funds the National Nuclear Security Administration years ver last appropriation and 608 million increase in weapons activity programs. We take steps to reduce the risk of a nuclear miscalculation. This bill denies president s trum for low yield Nuclear Weapon. The request that would undermine our security. The last 60 years of Nuclear Deterrent strategy were based on nuclear strategic submarine forces that the survivable leg of our try add never being used for tactical weapons. And we have countless funds and delivery funds is not only unnecessary but a dangerous policy. We have plutonium pits at 0 a year and making this possible by 2026. This goal will be extremely challenging, we must set it up for success. Arms control treaties, we continue to be challenged by the administration which continues to upend treaties. This bill supports the open end treaty. And i look forward to supporting this legislation. The chair the gentleman from tennessee yields back. The gentleman from washington reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry im pleased to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from new york, ms. Stefan nick. The chair the gentlelady is recognized. Ms stefanik i thank my colleague, jim langevin for your bipartisan work on this bill. As Ranking Member of the subcommittee intelligence, emerging threats and capabilities, i want to highlight what i support. This bill is active. We continue our focus on emerging technologies and Manufacturing Technologies that are fundamental to our advancement in weapons and directed energy. We include an emphasis on basic research and the important contributions provided by universities and department of defense labs and we enhance capabilities and support for our special Operations Forces including additional funds for the force and family program. The bill also extends the National Security commission on Artificial Intelligence which is a provision that i sponsored in section 1051 of last years ndaa to advance the development of ai. The recommendations will help us maintain Global Research and prepare our citizens. As a second broad team this continues military operations and activities, cyber and counterterrorism and intelligence. These are broad bipartisan frame works put in place by then chairman Max Thornberry and jim langevin. Im pleased we are advancing these frame works. As we consider this ndaa we should remind ourselves in our role. It is our principal responsibility to protect our homeland and provide our men and women in uniform to safely execute dangerous missions. And im concerned where our colleagues in the majority are taking this bill and whether we are fulfilling this. We need to restore funding to 750 billion, this it is still short from former secretary of defense and senior military commanders. , this e top line of 735 would limit programs such as russia and china and several 0 seconds. Mr. Thornberry i yield 0 seconds. The chair the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. Ms stefanik as we are in this great power competition, this bill limits our ability to deter against adversaries such as russia and china and this regresses all of the efforts to recover. While i support portions of this bill and my support of this bill in ki im deeply concerned it is moving in the wrong direction and fails to support the needs of our men and women in uniform long snt reflect the standing tradition. I urge my colleagues to consider this lack of bipartisan support ol final passage. I yield back. The chair the gentlewoman yields back. The gentleman from texas reserves. And the gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith i yield two minutes to mr. Courtney who is the chairman of sea power and forces. Mr. Courtney i rise in strong support of the 2020 National Defense authorization act. As chairman of the subcommittee, i believe this bill invests in critical priorities in a new era. In sea power we scrub the portions of the president s budget request under our jurisdiction and identified savings to provide for the ships and air cast our nation needs. This bill authorizes 22 billion ship building budget to go construct 11 battle ships and three destroyers, one frigate and one amphibious ship and two salvage and rescue ships. This bill will reverse the administrations decision to ancel refueling to uss harry truman and this was already paid for by the american taxpayer. The urgent testimony into real action by legislating a longterm legislation of the program to secure military fuel supply and new build sea lift domestic program. This bill provides for our k46 tanker and the b52. Outside of sea power, the full committee worked hard to improve quality of life for Service Members. Im pleased my amendment is included in this bill which reverseses the order lacking them to transfer their g. I. Benefits. This would not have been possible without the work of rob whitman and our staff and all our subCommittee Members, particularly our new members for their contributions to this years bill. Im confident that the bill we will vote on later this week which has significant bipartisan input will meet the needs of the Protection Forces and provide a historic boost of quality of life that our volunteer military force deserves. Thank you, mr. Speaker, i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from texas. Mr. Thornberry im pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. Lamborn. The chair the gentleman from colorado is recognized. Mr. Lamborn i thank the Ranking Member. As we consider h. R. 2500, its important to remember this bill is about ensuring the men and women in our armed forces and their families that they have what they need to defend our great nation. We have done well in some respects. But have come up short in other areas vital to our military. Im proud of the bipartisan work the readiness subcommittee completed under the leadership our chairman garmeppedy and funded on the unfunded list and privatized military Family Housing and directed development of rights and do a Case Analysis before awarding a Household Goods contract and this bill comes to the floor as we emerge from a dangerous readiness crisis. We have made big strides to rebuild readiness and modernizing for near per competitors but we cannot move backwards. They said we needed 3 to 5 real growth to keep our Competitive Edge against russia and china. By not supporting the 750 billion request, we are not maintaining that edge. The bill does not support strategic priorities. And fails to fund almost 1. 5 billion in key readiness accounts and also fails to fund a high value detainee complex at Guantanamo Bay. For these reasons i do not support time passage out of committee. I hope to improve the bill through the amendment process. Failing that, i would urge my colleagues to vote against time passage. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the chair the gentleman from colorado yields back. The gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. Garamendi. The chair the gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Garamendi i ask unanimous consent to enter my full statement. I rise in support of this legislation. The chair the request will be covered by germ leave. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Garamendi i rise in support of this legislation. Its a good piece of legislation and i thank chairman smith and Ranking Member thornberry and my colleague, mr. Lamborn, working with our committee. We worked with members to ensure that the bill addresses four Priority Areas affecting our military. First we asked the question, is the military ready for Climate Change . It is not. In the last 12 months, storms have devastated cam lg union and this will accelerate and enhance readiness by requiring the department of defense to plan for and respond to the threat that Climate Change poses to military facilities. Second, the bill includes a number of bipartisan provisions aimed at addressing with the management and oversight of military housing for families. Third, the bill authorizes additional funding and includes provision go to mitigate contaminated water from compounds used in military installations. The bill upholds the committees responsibility to conduct oversight of and provide support for military training, maintenance and infrastructure. For example, the mark authorizes 256. 4 billion and 8. 8 billion increase over 218 for the operation and maintenance account. This includes an additional 834 million to address submarine and surface ship maintenance shortfalls and 309 million for the sustainment accounts and 11. 5 billion for military construction and base aalignment and closure activities. This includes 168 million above the budget request for Construction Projects associated with the European Deterrence Initiative and authorizes 31 additional programs. I yield back the remaining amount of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. Kelly. The chair the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. Mr. Kelly i rise to express concerns with the ndaa in its current form. It is cutting 15 billion from the top line requested by the president and 1. 2 billion from the military personnel requests. I spent 33 years in serving this nation. I cant support this bill. While it is true personnel accounts had money left over at the end of the year, several factors will make fiscal year 2020 different. Over the last few years there have been Funds Associated with the new military blended retirement system because fewer members are opting in. However, the optin period ends this year so there will be no leftover funds related to this in 2020. In f. Y. 2019, the arm will fall short by 9500 troops. This will result in excess troops because fewer troops came into the army. The army is likely to meet their modest end strength goal for f. Y. 2020 and will be no excess fund. The 3. 1 automatic pay raise and the total force means personnel costs will increase. There is likely to be no fund in the personnel. And this bill i am concerned if personnel accounts if they are underfunded they may not have funds to fix it. There are more important provisions in this bill that i want to thank chairwoman speier for arisk at our subcommittee mark. It would provide end strength increases and additional benefits for the military spouses. I want to thank Ranking Member thornberry and chairman smith for their leadership. Im committed to work with my colleagues to improve this bill, which is so important for our troops and their families. I yield back. The chair the gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith and i would simply note in last years ndaa when the republicans were in charge, they cut 751 million from the personnel account. And then the president six months after that took another 1 billion out of the personnel account to fund his wall. In last years ndaa, which all of them enthusiastically supported, the personnel account was cut by 1. 7 billion. We do not simply rubber stamp the president s request and never have. What were doing here is in keeping with past history. With that i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, the chair of the personnel subcommittee, ms. Speier. The chair the gentlewoman from california is recognized. Ms. Speier thank you, mr. Chairman. Im proud to speak in support of this bipartisan bill that contains priorities of both parties, and while it wasnt unanimous, it does nothing to change our responsibility to give military members and families bipartisan support. We did that in the military personnel subcommittee, and i thank Ranking Member kelly for his work. This bill contains two landmark achievements for our Service Members and their families. It incity tuitts a fix to it institutes a fix to the festering widow tax, ensuring they wont have their d. O. D. And v. A. Benefits offset. I was once a widow. I know the pain and the emptiness. We must take care of the spouses who sacrifice so much for our nation. This bill rectifies a denial of rights to Service Members who are victims of malpractice at military medical facilities by allowing active duty Service Members to sue the department for malpractice. For more than half century, those who put their lives on the line have had fewer legal rights to sue for malpractice than prisoners in federal prison. This bill moves the ball forward on other personnel priorities by funding a 3. 1 pay raise, improving Sexual Assault prevention and response, including at the service academies, promoting spousal employment, creating a housing ombudsman and giving tricare the same contraception coverage the same as all americans. It has paid family and medical leave to federal employees and congressional staff. Mr. Chairman, we owe Service Members and their families, we owe them this important set of benefits. I yield back. The chair the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time. The gentleman from washington reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, im pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. Turner. The chair the gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner thank you, mr. Speaker. I am disappointed by the fiscal year 2020 National Defense authorization act that is offered here on the floor today. This bill represents a significant deviation from our past sentiment of bipartisanship. Now, the senate has passed their bill by 86 votes. But not the house. Not this year. This bill in its totality makes us less safe. Which is why it does not have bipartisan support on this bill. Now, chairman smith said we were able to negotiate through a few things, and thats right, but there are also some that we were not and one of them is a big one. Its why theres not one republican that voted in the subcommittee for Strategic Forces for the bill to come out of subcommittee and not one republican in the full committee voted for the Strategic Forces portion of the bill to be referred to the full committee and to this floor. That is because it contains a provision that can only be described as unilateral nuclear disarmament. It is unilateral because it does not involve anyone else. It only inhibits us. Its nuclear because it involves our Nuclear Weapons and its disarmament because it recalls the Nuclear Weapon. It prohibits the use of funds for the deployment of low yield Ballistic Missile warheads that have already been funded and produced and are to be deployed on a bipartisan basis. Efforts by congress to recall these assets from deployment is unilateral disarmament. Now, even if youre against Nuclear Weapons, even if youre against Nuclear Weapons, you should be against the other side having Nuclear Weapons and that means that you should be pursuing restrictions by treaty. Now, imagine how this conversation is going to go in moscow. Someone in the kremlin is going to walk into Vladimir Putins office and they are going to say, vlad, you modernized our Nuclear Weapons, invaded our neighbors, threatened the u. S. And our adversaries, and their allies and now the u. S. Congress has just voted to unilaterally pull the lowyield Nuclear Weapon that was scheduled for deployment. Now, putin is not going to believe them. Hes going to think this is a joke because no one would believe that the United States congress in the National Defense authorization act would reward russian aggression in this bill by pursuing unilateral nuclear disarmament. I am comforted that many of these provisions will never become law. I never thought i would say this but im going to. Thank god for the senate. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill and oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament. I yield back. The chair the gentleman from ohio yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith thank you, mr. Speaker. Its a unique way to looking at a world to describe a nation that has literally thousands of Nuclear Weapons as unilaterally disarming. I ensure the public we are not doing that. With that i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from maryland, a member of the committee, mr. Brown. The chair the gentleman from maryland, mr. Brown, is recognized. Mr. Brown thank you, chairman smith, for your unprecedented bipartisanship in bringing this bill to the floor. This years ndaa provides the Strategic Funding we need to maintain a robust military that can tackle our global challenges. Reversing the president s soft stance on russia by boltsering the European Initiative with our allies and collaborating with our allies against north korea. It makes greater investments in training, equipping, providing for our armed forces, funding a 3. 1 pay raise for Service Members, the largest in a decade. This years ndaa, we have the opportunity to increase Research Capacity for historically black colleges and universities. We empower the department of defense to identify the scope of white nationalism, extremism, and violent miss odge knee in the military misogyny in the military. And we ensure minorities are more fully represented in our officer corps. We rise to the challenge set forward and reverse some of thed a the administrations worst policy decisions. And we prevent the president s use of the militarys piggy bank for his border wall. With additional amendments we will allow transgendered americans to openly and honorably serve our country in uniform and ensure the president cannot put us on a path to war without congressional approval. It is clear that we will pass perhaps the most progressive and robust Defense Authorization in years, and im proud to support it. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from maryland yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, im pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman new to the committee but not new to National Security, general bergman. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Bergman mr. Speaker, i rise today with disappointment, what was once a bipartisan bill is now a vehicle for policies that hinder our readiness and our defense capabilities. For almost 60 years, the ndaa has been a bipartisan endeavor. The ndaa fulfills the number one role of congress, to provide for our common defense. But House Democratic leadership has turned this into yet another partisan bill. Let me be clear. I support a pay raise for our troops. I support providing all war fighters with the best resources available, and a National Defense authorization that empowers america and our allies. But unfortunately, this bill, in its current form, poses a significant threat to our ability to carry out the National Defense strategy now and in the years ahead. As president reagan often said of our National Defense strategy, peace through strength. Repeat, does not, i not show strength. We can and must do better. Mr. Speaker, i yield back. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith thank you. Im now pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from michigan, ms. Watt kin, a member of the armed ervices committee. The chair the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. Ms. Slotkin i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. Funding our National Defense shouldnt always be a bipartisan priority. We have created a bill thats strong on defense and stays true to our values as a country. This bill includes important provisions that all americans can get behind. It funds our military at the highest levels in history and ensures our readiness of our forces. It includes a 3. 1 pay raise for our Service Members. It strengthens provisions to combat foreign information operations, protecting us from foreign adversaries that wishes us harm. Climate change poses a growing threat to National Security. It ensures protections for military families. As a former pentagon official, as an army wife with a stepdaughter serving on active duty right now, i firmly believe we have a solemn responsibility to our men and women to pass a bill that funds our military. Failure to do so, despite concerns about certain provisions, would be an abdication of that responsibility. This bill also funds priorities that are important to the economies and safety of our local communities and our districts. I fought hard to include provisions that directly impact my community in michigan and communities like ours across the country. He ndaa will reduce pphos contamination by reducing foam with those chemicals and ask the pentagon to come up with a plan of action to clean up these sites. This ndaa includes provisions that help states like michigan capitalize on our unique capabilities in autos, cyber, robotics and software to help fuel innovation at the Defense Department. Thank you and i urge my colleagues to support this bill. The chair the gentlewomans time has expired. The gentleman from washington reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, im pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. Desjarlais. The chair the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. Desjarlais desjarlais i thank the Ranking Member mr. Desjarlais i thank the Ranking Member for yielding. While i appreciate the work done on this ndaa, the legislation simply doesnt provide our military men and women with the resources needed to adequately protect the homeland and could negatively impact facilities in and around the Fourth District of tennessee, including around air orce base, redstone arsenal, and laboratories. While it is not deploying the Nuclear Weapon to deter russian aggression or underprioritize and funding for research and development for next generation such as hibersonic weapons, this ndaa does not adequately meet the requirements for addressing challenges posed from our adversaries. Finally, the ndaa highlights my colleagues continuing disregard for National Emergency occurring at the southern border. This bill prevents the d. O. D. From playing a role in addressing the crisis. Our militarys number one responsibility is to protect the homeland. If my democratic colleagues refuse to provide funding for d. H. S. To secure the border, the military must have a role. Mr. Speaker, from the top line to its policy does not support our military or our security appropriately. For this reason, i cannot support this bill, and urge my colleagues to vote no. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith thank you, mr. Chairman. I now yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from texas, a member of the committee, ms. Escobar. The chair the gentlewoman from texas is recognized, ms. Escobar. Ms. Escobar thank you, mr. Chairman. Im proud to have craft this years National Defense authorization act. The fiscal year 2020 bill incorporates ideas from both sides of the aisle to deliver essential support and a pay raise to our deserving men and women in uniform. Our bill authorizes 733 billion to provide for a smart and robust National Defense, enhances housing and Financial Support to military families, and addresses operational and budgetary threats posed by Climate Change. I was pleased to share with my Armed Services Committee Colleagues the innovative work happening in districts like mine which are home to some of the militarys core training installations. This includes fort bliss leadership on Net Zero Energy and Ongoing Partnership with the v. A. That improves soldiers medical expertise while also serving our local veterans. I was proud to support our vibrant El Paso Community by advancing a Community Infrastructure support program and ensuring promising technologies like Additive Manufacturing and the unique contributions of our small businesses, always have a place in building our National Defense. Finally our bill enhances diversity, improves oversight and accountability of d. O. D. s support to d. H. S. , and, yes, blocks the president from robbing finite military resources for a wall that our military never requested. This is a bill we can all be proud of. I look forward to casting my vote in support. Mr. Chairman, he thank you for your leadership, and i i thank you for your leadership, and i urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from washington reserves the balance the chair the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. Mitchell. The chair the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. Mr. Mitchell thank you, mr. Speaker. Thank you for yielding me time. Its been a pleasure to be on two committees that have historically been bipartisan. House Armed Services and transportation and infrastructure. As was indicated, historically this has been a bipartisan bill. Last year it passed out of committee with one no vote. The senate achieved it, it passed the senate Armed Services committee unanimously, and it passed the senate 868. Yet here we stand. Because bipartisan is not simply counting percentages of amendments that were brought to the floor or passed. There are significant issues. Significant issues that we are not dealing with in this bill. While we give people additional pay raises, a significant raise to military, we cut funding that impacts modernization, readiness and training and cuts military funding. 1. 2 billion. Further, the bill neglects to address something thats been bipartisanly supported for a long period of time, which is nuclear readiness. And here we take a hatchet to it as well. I stress that we must make a bipartisan effort to bring a bill to this floor that supports our military consistently and not have partisan politics take over our military. I support that, i reject this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith i yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from maryland, mr. Hoyer. The chair the gentleman from aryland is recognized. Mr. Hoyer thank you so much, mr. Speaker. Congratulations, chairman smith, on bringing to the floor an excellent bill. And i want to also congratulate mr. Thornberry from texas. A responsible member of this congress. A responsible member of the minority. And a person who has been a strong voice on behalf of National Defense. I rise in strong support of this years Defense Authorization bill. It makes smart, Strategic Investments in our military to keep america safe and defend our interests overseas. And it reflects core values. We are proud to fund the department of defense. I have been in this body for some 38 years. Ive supported every defense bill. Now, when i say that, very frankly, weve had some political fights back and forth and there have been political votes cast where we thought there were things being done that shouldnt be done. But ive supported a strong National Defense, ive supported most of Ronald Reagans buildup, which was by the way started by jimmy carter. Ive supported making sure that we had the weapons we needed and the personnel we needed. Were proud as democrats to stand behind our men and women in uniform. As a matter of fact, some of the great victories of democracy have been led by people like Woodrow Wilson in world war i, Franklin Roosevelt in world war ii, harry trumen in korea. Truman in korea. Confronting communism. Authoritarianism. People who would want to rule by iron might. This bill, first written by a democratic majority in eight years, raises military pay by 3. By 3. 1 , recognizes the contribution of our men and women in uniform. It supports a stronger military by prohibiting funding for discrimination against transgender, that denies us the talents and Courageous Service of patriotic americans. Thats happened before. Harry truman stepped in and said, no, were not going to segregate our services. Were not going to discriminate against those of color in our services in the 1940s, post world war. There were some who said that would destroy our military effectiveness. Theyre saying the same thing about gays and transgender. They were wrong then, theyre wrong now. This bill cuts 17 billion. The chairman and the Ranking Member and i have had discussions through the years. We need to make sure that we spend our money smartly. And not just blindly spend money. We need to make sure that every dollar is spent effectively. But that our National Security is not in any way undermined. I believe the savings that have and affected are focused taking that money and used for effective items and taking it away from expensive and ineffective wall on the southern border that the president wants to spend. It also acknowledges this serious National Security challenges posed by Climate Change. Surely we know how critical to our National Security the effects of Climate Change are showing. We experience that just experienced that just the other day here in washington, d. C. Requires the pentagon to develop a plan along with others in our government as to how we can confront, effectively, and on behalf of our National Security, Climate Change. This bill also accelerates the , it is notng overdue the american way to hold people without finding out whether they are in fact guilty or not. Ive been to guantanamo. Nobody in america ought to talk about how much it costs to incarcerate somebody in america. Because its about 1 10 or 1 20 of what its costing us in guantanamo. You talk about fiscal responsibility. Im deeply disappointed that my republican friends are bucking a long tradition i did not like everything in your defense bill. I disagreed sincerely with some of the provisions that you put in your defense bill. And i voted for the defense bills you offered on this floor. Because i thought they were in the best interest of our country. Not perfect. But in the best interest of our country. And of our military. And of our National Security. I am sorry that that is not happening today. Or tomorrow or thursday or friday. I guess tomorrows thursday. Friday when we vote on it. This bill ought to have bipartisan support. Ought to have bipartisan support for our military. And if the situations were reversed, my republican colleagues would be accusing democrats of not supporting our National Security. Not supporting our troops. Not supporting the men and women who are put at the point of a spear, in harms way. Many paying the ultimate price. Thats what you would accuse us of. How sad it is that some in this house are choosing loyalty to the president and their party over common commitment to our troops. Tough words, but i think true. Republicans object to this bill because they claim it does not meet their demands for 750 billion. Until march of this year, however, they were demanding exactly the number in this bill. Some on my side of the aisle hink this sum is too high. Mr. Smith and i and the speaker urged our colleagues to adopt this number because it was a bipartisan number. Not the perfect number. More than 70 republican members, 70, out of your 194 wrote to the president citing the same number as their preferred figure for defense investment. Thats the number the pentagon used for the Previous Year around which it built its budgets. Thats what joseph dunceford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the general said was the number the pentagon needed, quote, after scrubbing every. Ccount, 733 billion thats the figure we included in this bill. Thats the figure that youre prepared to vote against. Ranking member thornberry, who is my friend, and who i respect, and who ive just spoken of, president ed that trump must, quote, move forward with the 733 billion budget he riginally proposed for 2020. We took your number. We took your number. And, yes, theres some things you dont agree with in the bill. But there were things we didnt agree with. Very frankly, there are very few bills that we consider on this floor that i agree with 100 . But were a democratic body. Were a collective, collegial body. And we try to reach consensus. E took your number we took the chairman of the oint chiefs of staffs number. Indeed, the same time that republicans were arguing that 733 billion isnt enough, the white house is calling for a continuing resolution that spends far less. A former member of this body , iginally suggested sequester which would devastate our National Security and our domestic security. As chairman adam smith has stated, to claim that 733 billion is an abdication of our responsibility to fund our troops is patently ridiculous and contrary to the representations that have been ade on your side of the aisle. That claim this bill is partisan. Thats absurd. The bill includes more than 53 of the amendments offered by republican members. A higher figure than democratic amendments in the bill. Chairman smiths staff worked tirelessly and collegially with republicans for months to ensure that the Defense Authorization bill would be bipartisan, as this legislation has been historically. Of course these are provisions in there are provisions in this bill which republicans disagree. Id be shocked if that were not the case. Theres probably going to be some provisions that i disagree with. That doesnt mean they should vote against this entire bill, however. Democrats supported this bill when we were in the minority over the last eight years. Check the record. Even when republicans forced controversial measures into it. Because we believed it was important to support our military. We voted for it over serious objections on policy because we viewed it as a mustpass bill. Where has that bipartisanship on ational security gone . Is it just the strategy to defeat this bill . Im convinced that were going to have 218plus democrats vote for this bill, mr. Chairman. I urge my republican colleagues to reconsider their opposition and vote for their number and put country over party. To my democratic colleagues i say, this is a Strong Defense bill, as good as youre going to get. It protects lgbt rights and advances family leave. It loosens the heinous restrictions on transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Opposing this bill means we will be stuck with a Senate Version that omits these provisions. I thank chairman smith and members of the Armed Services committee for their hard work. D i thank the Ranking Member i congratulate you both on producing a very strong, very positive bill. You did that together. Do not abandon your work. I hope that it will pass. With resounding support from both sides of the aisle. Our troops in harms way deserve that affirmation, that trust, that faith, that commitment. Lets not let them down. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. The gentleman from texas is recognized. I yield myself two minutes. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Thank you, 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 349, es like we had, 351, ooned forth to pass this bill. Mr. Thornberry thats why i began my remarks pointing out that this is different. Im in the sure great democrats of the past, roosevelt, truman, kennedy, would recognize this defense bill thats before us, much less the amendments that we see coming down the pipe. 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. Let me quote directly. I dont have his words from a transcript. What i do have is defense news, june 13, 2017, where he says directly, quote, we now know that continued growth in the base budget of at least 3 above inflation is the floor necessary to preserve just the competitive advantage we have today and we cant assume our adversaries will remain still. Consistent testimony from dunford, mattis, shan han, etc. , are that the floor is 3 . 6 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. Im going to avoid well, i want to quote back the chairman smith 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 pandering for him, he was referring to speaker boehner, to now claim that a goat against the ndaa is a vote against the troops. It is not. Regardless of whether you support the ndaa or not we support the brey men and women of the military who defend this country. Thing side of the aisle, we have nothing to apologize for in our support for the troops and american National Security. We want a better product. And i hope that at some point well get itful i reserve the balance. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from washington is recognized. May i inquire how much time is left on both sides . The chair the gentleman has five minutes remaining. The gentleman from texas has 3 3 4 time. I reserve and im the only remaining speaker. The chair the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry im pleased to yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. Walz. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Walz with 23 years of service as a green beret with special tours in the white house and pentagon, i can assure my colleague misprimary focus is the floridians i represent and the troops down range and there are many things i support in this bill. Support greater benefits for gold star families, although some of those recently introduced are not fully funded. Restricting additional contracting with the maduro regime, fully authorizing the navys Antisubmarine Warfare capability and of course the emerging space corps. Mr. Waltz but i would describe this bill as in many ways necessary but in a whole, not sufficient. Particularly in seeking to close Guantanamo Bay without sufficient alternatives, that previous administrations and congresses have all, i think, sought to do in good faith. Tying the president s hands in protecting the border and on iran. And of course the wholly insufficient top line as we discussed here today. To deal with the global threat that remains on terrorism, to deal with china, russia, iran, north creey and other threats. I hope this bill improves, sincerely, with amendments on the floor. To be worthy of the men and women down range defending this great nation. I yield my time. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry the gentleman only has one more speaker . I yield myself the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry i would recognize as the gentleman from florida just dade, the strongest desire of members on this side of the aisle is to work, continue to work constructively with anyone who wants to work with us. To help improve this bill so that it strengthens american 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 68 just two weeks ago. I think that ought to be our model. And i think that this bill as it moves in that direction will gain the support of a number of members here. But its the real sub stand i concerns about whats 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 toing and froing matters. What matters is does support our troops and improve americas National Security. Thats we may have different judgment bus thats the only criteria that matters. Its about them and about the country and that will continue to be our guiding standard. I yield back the balance of our time. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from washington is recognized. I yield myself the balance of my time. Voting against the ndaa does not mean you dont support. Its interesting the people on your side who said we were betraying our country by not supporting the bill. Mr. Smith i dont agree with that then, dont agree with it now. But the only partisanship on this floor is coming 100 from the Republican Party. I appreciate the gentlemans words. I work very well with him as the Ranking Member. I continue to work well him, but on the statement about how the republican side of the aisle stands ready to work with us to make this bill bettering i have seen no evidence of that. Talk about amendments on the floor. The decision opo oppose this bill was made in committee before we even got to the floor. What were hearing is a whole series of excuses for why theyre opposing the by its very simple and straightforward why theyre opposing the bill. Pure partisanship. They keep talk about the numbers of times the democrats voted with them and how this is different. The difference is the Republican Party decided if its not their defense bill 100 they will not vote for it and then theyll stand up and accuse us of being partisan. The reason i cite all those numbers is all the outreach and effort we did to make this bill bipartisan. They did not reach back. This is pure partisanship. Were in charge, theyre not going to support it, try to make us look bad. And the toing and froing matters because that is what guts the bipartisanship. If you will not even try to work with us if youre not in charge, thats the definition of partisanship and it jeopardizes 5 years of history. Im not going to give up. Im going to keep trying to reach out, keep trying to work with you. But please, those of you watching this, understand the only partisan thing going on here is that the republicans are in charge, theyre not going to vote for it. Ill pick a couple of examples. We heard that we have taken a hatchet to the Nuclear Budget. So im sure youre wondering, how much have we cut the Nuclear Budget by . We increased it by 4 . Thats taking a hatchet to it . We are engaged, believe it or not, in unilateral disarmament on the floor of this house. As we increase the amount of money that we spend on Nuclear Weapons by 4 , as we fully fund the b21 bombers, the columbia Class Nuclear submarine the lrso and the modernization of the Nuclear Weapons rules. All these arguments are nonsense going back to the personnel argument. They cut the personnel account by more than we did because they didnt agree with the president. All of these arguments are pure partisanship. Nothing drive this is point home more clearly than the 733 billion. I cant say it any better than the majority have said it. The quote from general dunford in january of 2017, if thats the case, why did chairman thornberry, im sorry, thats the way i always think of you, write an oped in the wall street journal in november of 2018 insisting that we had to have 733 . If we had said 750 theyd be on the floor saying, not enough. Got to be 775. Because thats the partisanship. And this is a realy important policy point. These numbers also matter because accountability at the pentagon matters. I would submit to you that this bill doesnt just maintain the bipartisan tradition. With them democrats working on this bill, this bill is better for National Security. Because we dont believe in sending a blank check to the pentagon. Sending a blank check to the pentagon is not in the best interests of our troops or our National Security. Mr. Thornberry is the best person working on reforming our procurement system to try and increase efficiency. I support him in that effort. But if you try to reform a system and make it more efficient, but then say you know what, at the last minute, heres another 17 billion, people arent going to get the message. Theyre going to say, accountability . You dont want account snblet youre going to give us more money no matter what weve done what we do, which is what weve done for far too long. So yes, we have accountability in this bill. But you have not heard a single good reason to oppose this other than pure partisanship. Its a brilliant way of doing this. As a friend of mine said a listening time ago, when youre in an argument with someone who is unreasonable, its hard not to sound unreasonable. Partisan is when you ignore the other side. The people behind me, i have worked on it but nobody has worked on it more than my staff and frankly the Minority Party staff. If you could see the hours that we spent working with republicans to get to good on a variety of different amendments you would laugh at out loud at the partisanship claim. I think this is important. I think if the Minority Party, the Republican Party, cannot work with us unless theyre in charge, then we are not going to get to a bipartisan place. And again we talk about how we cut the president s budget. It was the president who tweeted out in november that 33 was too much. Thats what the president said. So as the majority leader said, we took your number and after we took your number you said we were being partisan. Thats absurd. This is a good bill that protect ours country, every member of this body should be proud to vote for it. I yield back the balance of my ime. The chair the gentlemans time has expire. Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. In lieu of the amendment considered in the nature a substitute, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consist og they have text in rule committees print 116119 modified by the amount printed in part a of house report 116143 shall be considered as adopted. The bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the fiveminute rule and shall be considered as read. No further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 176. 476. Each further amendment prinned in part b of the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debate initial time specified in the report equally divided and controlled for the by the proponent and the opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment and scholl not be subject to a demand for division of the question, it shall be in order any time for the chair of the committee on the Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc con sitsing of amendments printed in part b of the report not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and Ranking Member. Of the committee on Armed Services or their designees. Shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for the ivision of the question. It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 116143. For what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition . Mr. Smith thank you, mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 116143, offered by mr. Smith of washington. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 476, the gentleman from washington, mr. Smith, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. Smith. Mr. Smith thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield myself two minutes. This is an amendment that was actually adopted at the Committee Level but there was a technical problem with it which we couldnt get corrected by u. C. So were redebating it on the house floor. I think its appropriate. Last year the Trump Administration decided to stop reporting on civilian casualties that were caused by our raids. This amendment reinstates that and requires the director of National Intelligence to report to us on civilian casualties that have resulted in raids that we have done outside of existing combat zones. We are engaged in many military operations which weve read about in places like somalia and libya and yemen. We think it is appropriate to keep statistics on how effective those raids have been and one of those measures of effectiveness is the number of civilian casualties that are included in that. That is what this amendment does. We have gotten the support of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, mr. Schiff, to do this for both d. O. D. Operations and intelligence operations. I think it is an important transparency measure that will help us better understand the affects of our military policy and i guess the final thing i would say on this is, its part of an underlying theme. One of the other things that the Minority Party doesnt like about our bill is, again, we want tholet pentagon accountable want to hold the pentagon accountable. We think the congress has a role in defense policy and we shouldnt simply turn it over to the pentagon. For us to know whats going on with this will inform our decisions as we attempt to exercise the legislate and effective oversight of pentagon legitimate and effective oversight of pentagon operations. I urge adoption of the amendment and with that i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition . Or rise . Mr. Speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentlewoman is recognized. Ms. Stefanik mr. Chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. The chair the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. Ms. Stefanik i rise in opposition to this amendment. First, i know the majority feels that this is just a technical fix to an administrative error but it raises a very important issue again for us to discuss now on the house floor and we should debate the merits of underlying provision. The secretary of defense is already charged with compiling this information and we have already put in place a full transparent Oversight Framework with publicly available reporting. As we debated in committee, the d. N. I. Is not the place to conduct such a review and report. We need the Intelligence Community focused on gathering and analyzing intelligence that is vital to our National Security. So pulling our National Level intelligence staff and resources away from those Important Missions to conduct a review thats already taking place, done by the d. O. D. , is a poor use of resources and its just bad policy. And i can say this as one of the few members on the Intelligence Committee and hask, the place we should be debating this is the intel authorization act, not the National Defense authorization act. There are jurisdictional issues here which is one of the reasons why im opposed to this amendment and i urge my colleagues to vote no and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlewoman from new york reserves the balance of her time. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith thank you. I would simply say that there are reporting requirements. There are not comprehensive reporting requirements. Thats the purpose of this amendment. To make sure we report everything so we have all of the information that is available to us. And i guess to a certain extent, if the opposition feels like its already being done, then why not do it effectively and efficiently . Because d. O. D. Is not in charge of all of the operations involved here. The National Director for intelligence would take into account everything were doing and make sure that we have an accurate picture of that. Again, i urge support and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. Mr. Smith actually, i should say, if i may. I dont have a lot more on this. But i do have the right to close. So ill reserve and when youre done, just let me know. The chair the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. The gentlewoman from new york is recognized. Ms. Stefanik im pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. Wenstrup. The chair the gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Wenstrup thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Ive had the pleasure of serving with ms. Stefanik on the house Intelligence Committee and i couldnt agree more with the point she has made. As a veteran, as a member of the house Armed Services committee for the previous three terms, and a member of the house Intelligence Committee, im familiar with u. S. Military as well as the Intelligence Community. This amendment, if adopted, would require the director of National Intelligence, not the secretary of defense, to submit a report to Congress Regarding strikes taken against terrorists outside of areas of active hostilities. As well as an assessment of combatant and noncombatant deaths. This amendment is problematic for several reasons. First, there already exists transparent oversight mechanisms with respect to civilian casualties. And that report is fully available to the public. Requiring the d. N. I. To conduct a review already completed by the secretary of defense is not only wasteful, but demonstrates a gross disregard for the d. N. I. s time that should be spent overseeing the Intelligence Communitys efforts against u. S. Adversaries. Further, this amendment circumvents the normal legislative process and completely bypasses the house Intelligence Committee. Tasking the office of the director of National Intelligence, an organization over which house intelligence has House Oversight responsibilities, requires consultation with the house Intelligence Committee. However, we were not given the opportunity to weigh in on this amendment until now, at the 11th hour, various cosponsors of this amendment performs a sly bait and switch, changing what was voted on by the Armed Services committee and inserting an organization solely within the house intelligence jurisdiction. To say im disappointed with that is an understatement. This amendment is irresponsible, reflects a disregard for the house Intelligence Committees equities in this debate, that fails to navigate the proper jurisdiction process and takes time and resources away from critical National Security missions. So i understand the desire of this type of wellmeaning legislation. However, committees of jurisdiction exist for a reason and im surprised that various members of the house Intelligence Committee would flagrantly disregard the implications of ceding our jurisdiction on this matter. So i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlewoman from new york reserves the balance of her time. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith just to clear up the record, i was wrong, you have the right to close. So ill close now and be done and send it back to you. I yield myself the balance of the time. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Smith just a couple quick points. First of all, we did not bypass the committee of jurisdiction. We were in constant consultation with the Intelligence Committee, with their staff, and we had that conversation and worked with them to get this. We did not bypass them. In fact, we got a waiver from the Intelligence Committee to have this amendment before our committee. And our Committee Takes jurisdiction, this bill has a number of provisions in it, including one i worked very closely with the gentlelady from new york on that has jurisdiction within the Intelligence Community. We include in this bill items that have their jurisdiction, but we work with them and in careful consultation. And i really dont think it is a lot to ask of our National Intelligence to look at the very important issue of how is our military action, regardless of whos doing it, impacting casualties, both civilian and otherwise. That is all this amendment does. I think it is something we should be doing regardless, and it is information that will be valuable to this house. So i urge adoption of the amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlewoman from new york is recognized. Ms. Stefanik i am pleased to yield one minute and 30 seconds to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. Bacon. The chair the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. Mr. Bacon thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise today opposing the that would do this. As chairman smith knows and also ms. Stefanik and the Ranking Member, though i voted for the ndaa in markup, i opposed this amendment then and i still do. Long story short is that this tasking should be in the intelligence authorization act, not in the Defense Authorization act. This tasks the director of National Intelligence, and thus it should be handled by the Intelligence Committee and within the intelligence authorization bill. We believe in transparency and doing all we can to minimize civilian casualties. We believe in proportionality. We believe in handling these operations correctly. I know from my experience of working three decades in the air force that our military goes through extensive vetting, extensive legal reviews, extensive cross checks before putting a weapon on a target that could threaten civilians. But lets be clear. D. O. D. Has a full and transparent Oversight Framework in place for d. O. D. And u. S. Military operations. The f. Y. 2018 ndaa established a robust civilian casualty reporting mechanism for the u. S. Military and the d. O. D. Reporting is fully available to the public. Even more, there are two additional provisions in this bill that increases the level of reporting and directs an independent assessment of d. O. D. s reporting of policy. Whats important here, this is about d. O. D. And military operations. Not the intelligence operations. Its not the d. O. D. s role to report on the Intelligence Community and its not the role of the ndaa to task the Intelligence Community. So i recommend voting against this amendment. We should send it to the Intelligence Committee and let them do it the right way, if the Intelligence Committee wants to take it on. Mr. Speaker, i yield back. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentlewoman from new york is recognized. Ms. Stefanik im pleased to yield one minute and 30 seconds to the gentleman from florida, mr. Waltz. The chair the gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining. Ms. Stefanik i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from florida, mr. Waltz. Mr. Waltz mr. Speaker, there is a distinct difference between oversight and unnecessary micromanagement. Protection of civilians is a fundamental part of military operations, d. O. D. Standards and policies are some of the most stringent in the world. No force in history has been more committed to limiting harm to civilians than the u. S. Military as a special operator military. As a special operate who are has had to make these decisions, we need to be very careful of secondary effects of these type of reports. From putting soldiers unnecessarily in harms way, to pilots being overly cautious, to terrorists living another day to kill more civilians ironically because of this overreach and overcaution. Our policies and procedures are sufficient. Mr. Chairman, i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Ms. Stefanik i ask for a recorded vote. Mr. Speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york will e postponed. The gentleman from washington. Mr. Smith mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 476, i offer amendments en bloc number 1. The chair the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. The clerk en bloc number 1 consisting of amendments 15, red 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 42, 8, 22, 28, 30, 36, 41, 57, 58, 3, 54, 55, 56, 65, 66, 1, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68 and 190, printed in part b of house report 116143 offered by mr. Smith of washington. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 476, the gentleman from washington, mr. Smith, and the gentleman from texas, mr. Thornberry, each will control 10 minutes. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from washington. Mr. Smith thank you, mr. Chairman. I am pleased to yield two minutes to the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. Engel. The chair the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. The gentleman from new york. Mr. Engel i thank the gentleman, my friend from washington. This is a good amendment and id like to mention two measures. First, key provisions of my burma act are included as they were in the last congress. The Burmese Security forces perpetrated genocide against the rohingya people and those same forces are continuing to terrify burmas other ethnic minorities with horrific violence. The victims deserve justice and they deserve our unwavering support. This measure will hold these military officials accountable for their crimes and help support democracy in burma. Next is my provision to prevent another phony Emergency Declaration to push through arms sales as the administration did in late may. The administration misused the law and went around congress to sell more than 8 billion in arms to the saudis. This fix would make sure that an Emergency Declaration cannot be used if the weapons wont be delivered for more than three months, because then there was no emergency in the first place. Its a commonsense reform that will protect Congress Role in the arms sale process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the en bloc. Im also honored to join chairman smith as a cosponsor of this amendment number 1. The mesh public deserves to know the impact of our military operations abroad. There must be more openness and transparency when tragedy occurs and civilian casualties are caused by u. S. Military action. Being open is our moral obligation, the right thing to do, and it also strengthens our security. Were better equipped to tackle our counterterrorism challenges when we have the full confidence of our citizens and our international partners. U. S. Military operations depend on Close Relationships with host nations, and we must do everything we can to ensure our partners that we take civilian casualties seriously. In the past the director of National Intelligence prepared reports on civilian casualties and strikes outside areas of active hostilities. This administration brought that sensible practice to a halt. This amendment would restore the d. N. I. s role. Restoring this responsibility is a commonsense step to bring transparency back to our Counterterrorism Operations and i urge all of our colleagues to support it, amendments as well. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, im pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, mr. Harris. The chair the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Harris thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Just raise concerns with two amendments in this en bloc amendment. Amendment number 5 is one that extends free coverage for pregnancy prevention and why i find this interesting, and with the amendment extends to all f. D. A. Approved drugs and methods, why i find it interesting is because a couple years ago we actually increased the copays on tricare for former members, you know, if you have diabetes and youre a former member, you have a 28 copay for your insulin. So this is kind of strange because what were doing is were selecting one type of drug and were saying, theres no copays for this, and yet we have thousands if not tens of thousands of members who take an important drug like insulin and have to pay a copay. So it just doesnt make sense. With regards to amendment number 3, amendment number 13 extends in vitro fertilization coverage which up until now has been for members with whose problems have been related to their military service, it extends it to all members all members as well. So its going to greatly increase the number of embryos created and although i have no disagreement with extending the coverage, the problem is the amendment doesnt deal and the statute doesnt deal with what youre going to do with these embree owes so embryos so it prevents serious life concerns just due to the sheer number of embryos created which will often be discarded, now with government payment involved. Many will be killed or stored indefinitely, theres no record in the amendment as to how many and yows can be created no direction about how to teal with that. Its creating an entitlement how to deal ying with something that people find problem mat ex. So i express disafreement with amendments 5 and 13. The chair the gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith i have no further speakers on this first en bloc but i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry im pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from nebraska. The chair the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for two minutes. I come here to support the en bloc. Theres a few amendments i want to briefly mention. Irst, funding to replace engines at Offutt Air Force base. This is critical for the backbone of the air forces median altitude program. Those simulators will have a huge impact. Instead of taking an aircraft home that should be flying in russia, china, iran, wherever it may be, without simulators they have to come back to Offutt Air Force base to do training. This will allow us to do training at home and continue our rural operation missions. I want to thank the chamber for supporting a bill that will help enable our civilian professors to be retained in our military academies and National War Colleges and all the Different Military schools we have allowing them to own the copyrighted material that they have. Prior to this bill, the civilian instructors would not be able to have the ownership oof this copyrighted material and many of them get out because they want to progress with their careers. This fixes that, allowed them to stay in and maintain ownership. And i want to praise another amendment in the en bloc. Were ea louing the academies now to endorse as well as participate with foundations that are there to help support the cadets. Prior to this, the academies were not allowed to partner or to endorse these foundations and it really limited the ability for these foundations to help our cadets. Now that they can work together, they can help provide more money for new facilities, gym equipment, providing a better quality of life for cadets while at the same time lowering the burden on our taxpayers. I want to praise this effort and i support the en bloc. Thank you. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Washington mr. Smith i do have an additional speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. Cicilline. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Cicilline i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in support of the en bloc package. I want to thank chairman smith and Ranking Member thornberry for their support of two amendments i have offered, particularly my amendment declaring the statutory right of Service Members under the statutory relief act. For too long, forced arbitration clauses buried deep in fine print of everyday contracts have blocked Service Members from having a day in court to hold companies accountable. Service members could serve in the national guard, be called for duty, and be fired on the st day they were due to work before deploying. And because of the contract, they couldnt take them to court. The forced arbitration clauses an ed companies to choose ar by ter. This bipartisan amendment would end this shameful practice by declaring arbitration clauses agreed enforceable if to after a dispute arises. Colleagues, k my for their strong bipartisan support for this amendment to protect our men and women in uniform and i thank the chame and Ranking Member for their support of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yield back. The gentleman from washington reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized