Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  July 10, 2019 6:51pm-8:52pm EDT

6:51 pm
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 couldn't 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.
6:52 pm
mr. thornberry: i have no further requests on this en bloc package and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, i yield myself such time as i may consume just to say i urge support for the en bloc package and reeled back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i think i yielded back. the chair: in that case, the question is on the amendment en bloc offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are greed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-143. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. speier: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will
6:53 pm
designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-143, offered by ms. speier of california. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 436, the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. speier: thank you, i recognize myself for two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. speier: i rise in support of my amendment to affirm the rights of all people regardless of race, religion, national origin, or sex, including sexual orientation or gender identity to serve openly in our armed forces so long as they meet gender neutral standards. this debate affects real service members who have served courageously. i want you to hear their stories. navy lieutenant commander blake griffin, a transman has served for 15 years and received the prestigious award.
6:54 pm
captain jennifer peace has served 15 years and is deployed to afghanistan and iraq multiple time. my captain olivia selleck, a transwoman, commissioned over 10 year ago, received the bronze star medal. kira has been in the nea seven years and deployed across the gleb. staff sergeant patricia king is a transwoman retiring after 20 years. 20 years, members. and has led combat infantry units over three deployments in afghanistan. over the last three years, 14,000 transgender service members have served openly and successfully, all five service chiefs affirmed they do not hamper the -- hamper lethality or co-highs hetion. malice cannot stop us giving medical care to those brave enough to serve. we know what transgender service
6:55 pm
people bring to the fight, let them bring it. i yield one minute to my colleague from california, congresswoman davis, who has aptly represented this committee many times over. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleague from california for her work to undo the damage the president has done to transgender service members and our armed forces. this ban endangers transgender soldiers and tells all transgender americans that they are not fit to serve their country. the harry truman amendment will reduce the president's arm -- reverse the president's harmful ban and protect transgender soldiers from further discrimination. though the president cited concerns over readiness, unit cohesion an medical costs, they have been untable back up their claims. mr. chairman, transgender troops have served openly at home, overseas, and in combat zones
6:56 pm
since 2016 without incident. a finding supported by the chief of staff of every service branch. the truman amendment extends federal protections to transgender soldiers and makes it unlawful to exclude anyone from service based on their jenner identity. transgender service members testified in the house that serving openly dramatically improved their quality of life and their service to our country. i urge a yes vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the jovepl from california, ms. speier, reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition though i'm not completely i'm sure i'm opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: at this point i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes.
6:57 pm
mrs. hartzler: being from missouri, i think harry truman would be shocked that this would be named after him. the limb nates all enlistment requirements except the gender neutral standard. it says any standards for eligibility shall take into account only, only the ability of an individual to meat gender-neutral occupational standards for military service and it goes on, intened or not i am concerned that this means that an individual with a chronic illness with zero ability to deploy could apply for and join the military as long as the candidate meets the gender neutral occupational standards. this is not how the military recruits and retains the best military fighting force. the military prides itself on high medical and physical standards. currently if you meet both standards then you may be granted the honor of serving. the military is under no only
6:58 pm
fwation to accept individuals who do not meet the medical criteria for service. the military's recrutement process doesn't screen for race, religion, color or national origin or sex. neither does it screen for gender preference. it seems that the intent of this amendment is to gut the president's recently implemented policy on transgender service members which i would remind everyone allows transgenders to serve. it allows transgenders to serve. in their biological sex. except for those -- except for those who have undergone treatments for gender disforea which would make them nondeployable. and i remind my colleagues that the d.o.d. policy is based on medical conditions, not an individual's fluid and preferred gender identity. it's based on deployability and readiness. not discrimination. the trump policy states, anyone who meets military standards without special accommodations
6:59 pm
can and should be table serve, this includes transgender persons. this amendment appears to gut the military's ability to ensure our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines can medically serve by saying the d.o.d. can only take them into account whether or not an individual meets gender neutral occupational standards. military service is a privilege, it's not a right. it would be unwise for us to make exceptions to service for one specific entity who could not meet medical standards and that is why i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i urge -- i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: i yield 45 seconds to my great colleague, mr. brown, from maryland. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized.
7:00 pm
mr. brown: i support -- i rise in support of congressman spears' amendment -- congresswoman speier's amendment. my background as an african-american leads me to believe that all americans who want to serve and meet our standards should be allowed to serve. this codifies the standard for all americans, would end president trump's ban on transgender service members and realize president truman's promise of the equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense that he made when he desegregated the armed forces. those who argue against transgender service often say it disrupts unit cohesion, erodes morale and reduces effectiveness. these argues regrettably were used to keep african-americans, women, and lesbian and gay members from serving. transgender service member, we need their service, they need their skills work need their courage, we need their patriotism and they need our
7:01 pm
support. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i only have myself to close and i reserve the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: may i inquire how much time i have remaining? . the chair: 1 3/4. spoirspoir all right. i now yield -- ms. speier: all right. i now yield one minute to my colleague from massachusetts, mr. kennedy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairwoman for her passionate work on this issue. the president's transgender military ban doesn't just ignore science, expert testimony, military experience and the advice of all five military chiefs of staff, it ignores the men and women who are willing to die in defense of our freedom. so i ask my colleagues one simple question. are you willing to look into the eyes of a trans service member and tell them that they are not
7:02 pm
qualified to serve in our nation's armed forces simply because of who they are? that our country won't allow them their most basic freedom, while expecting them to die for our own. if our nation's fundamental promise -- it's our nation's fundamental promise that we are all created -- if our nation's fundamental promise that all are created equal doesn't you a ply to all, then what are we asking them to defend anyway? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman. i now yield 30 seconds to my holland eague, ms. from new mexico. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mr. hollingsworth: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. o'halleran: thank you, mr. speaker -- ms. haaland: thank you, mr. speaker. we must treat our service members with respect and
7:03 pm
dignity. both of my parents served and only judged their fellow service members on one standard. their ability to complete the mission. transgender service members honorably serve this country and are not any different than any other service member. they come from families where service is a tradition, they go through the same training and abide by the same requirements. they deserve fairness and respect and i urge the passage of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: i'm prepared to close. so -- how much time do i have left, mr. chairman? the chair: 15 seconds. ms. speier: 15 seconds. i will be brief. these are service members who deserve our support. these are service members who have already identified as trans
7:04 pm
members in our military. they provide no issues in terms of lethality or cohesion. they serve with distinction, with honor and it's time for us repeal this ill-advised amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: thank you. mr. chairman, i'd simply say, my view is that if a service member is qualified and can do the job without some sort of special accommodation, then we ought to take advantage of that member's service. i know that secretary mattis has testified, quote, it is a bedrock principle of the department of defense that any eligible individual who can meet the high standards for military service without special accommodations should be permitted to serve. that's what i believe.
7:05 pm
i've read the gentlelady's amendment. it's not clear to me that her amendment is in violation of that statement or my belief. i heard and listened clearly to the concerns mrs. hartzler stated. so maybe we need to continue, as we move forward, to look at whether there are other consequences to the language. but it seems to me the standard that secretary mattis has set out, if you can do the job, you ought to be able to do the job, that's the right one. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to. ms. speier: madam chair, i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will e postponed.
7:06 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in 143. b of house report 116- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. speier: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by ms. speier of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 476, the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california for five minutes. ms. speier: thank you, madam chair. we withdrew this particular amendment during the committee's disposition on the ndaa, at the request of mr. kelly. because i recognize that he had some important points to make. i think this addresses his concern. this particular amendment ensures access to high-quality
7:07 pm
education on family planning across military branches, to give our service members the tools they need to make the best health care decisions for themselves and their families. according to the d.o.d. estimates, the vast majority, some 95% of all women serving in our military are of reproductive age. yet data from the department of defense survey shows insufficient access to comprehensive family planning education among our service members. inadequate family planning education puts service members at high-risk of unplanned pregnancies and creates uncertainty in the retention of critical personnel. not surprisingly, research shows that active duty service members of reproductive age have a rate of unplanned pregnancies that is 60%, i repeat, 60% higher than that of comparable women in the general population. the education on family planning is not just about contraception or pregnancy, it's also about preventing sexually transmitted infections, including h.i.v. and staying healthy and informed.
7:08 pm
this amendment would create a uniform education program across all branches of the military so the service members receive current and medically accurate information. the education would be mandatory within the first year of service and additional education may be offered at the discretion of each service branch. this is an issue of basic health care, but it's also a matter of military readiness and national security. our troops deserve the very best regardless of which branch of the military they serve. i now would like to yield one minute to mrs. davis from alifornia. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you, thank you, madam chair. madam chair, i rise today to support the amendment offered by my colleague from california, ms. speier. it provides our service members with medically accurate educational resources to help prevent unintended pregnancies and the spread of sexually
7:09 pm
transmitted infections. the courageous americans who put their lives on the line for our country, they deserve the best wellness education we can offer. and keeping them healthy helps maximize our military's readiness. this commonsense amendment is recommended by the pentagon's nonpartisan defense advisory committee on women in the services. and therefore there should be broad bipartisan support and i encourage my colleagues who support our troops to vote for it. madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. speier: madam chair, i now offer one minute to my colleague from new mexico. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. haaland: thank you, chairwoman. i rise in support of this amendment and i want to highlight three key points. the military women of
7:10 pm
reproductive age, they lack access to adequate health care. this is a health care problem. unplanned pregnancies hamper readiness and make it harder for women to advance their careers. and this personnel issue can be easily remedied. a service branch shouldn't determine the quality of care our service members should have and this is an equality issue. i thank chairwoman speier and i urge passage of this amendment. i yield my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? from missouri. mrs. hartzler: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. hartzler: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for such time as she may consume. mrs. hartzler: i rise today in opposition to this amendment which establishes and mandates the establishment of a curriculum to be used in education programs on family planning for every military service man and woman. i'll be the fist to say, i think this amendment is -- first to
7:11 pm
say, i think this amendment is excessive. we already have d.o.d. policy that requires the defense health agency in each military service medical department to administer its own training on counseling and methods of contraception to all d.o.d. health care providers, so that they may provide assistance to our military members when it's needed. in addition, i'm a former teacher and i believe knowledge is important. but a simple bro chure would suffice. however, this amendment is over the top. it would require an entire curriculum to be developed which would be used in education programs. it requires every military member, men and women, to come in off the field and instead of honing their skills on the target range or in the cockpit, they'd be subjected to perhaps hours of power point presentations, work sheets, lectures, not on what china's doing in the south china sea or the latest tactics of russian aggression, but on family
7:12 pm
planning. not only would this amendment force every service member to be subjected to this curriculum and programming, suggesting that this training is more important than their military training, but it ambiguously defines what comprehensive family planning is. as written in this amendment, this training would include information about the prevention of unintended pregnancy and the importance of providing comprehensive family planning. i'm extremely concerned this ambiguous terminology will be interpreted to include abortion counseling or services. we already see this dangerous terminology in places like new york where their comprehensive family planning program funds over 57 planned parenthoods. i would like to know from the author of this amendment whether this amendment encompasses information about abortion services as part of comprehensive family planning services, and if i may, madam chair, i would like to yield 10
7:13 pm
seconds to the gentlelady from california to answer this question. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. speier: i thank the gentlelady from missouri. let me be clear. we are already providing this service in the branches, they are not uniform, this would make it uniform. so whatever is being provided now would continue to be provided but it would be consistent and uniform. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. hartzler: thank you. reclaiming my time. so it sounds like a little ambiguous answer there, we don't know if this includes abortion counseling or not. you know, madam speaker, i just think that this is an unnecessary mandate to push family planning curriculum on a captive audience. perhaps it's not the best use of our time of our military. other government employees are not forced to leave their job duties to attend family planning training. you don't hear of the department of education having their employees go or the department of transportation or any of the other departments. yet we want to take our
7:14 pm
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marine off the training field and bring them -- marines off the training field and bring them in for this curriculum. i would suggest that we should not target our military population and use their precious time in this way. i believe too much is at stake. and so thank you, madam chair, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: thank you, madam chair. you know, i really object to my good friend and colleague's definition of what this is actually doing. we are already providing this kind of training, this kind of education, to our service members in all our branches. we do know that the navy and marines are considered to do it best, while the army and air force have room for improvement. a recent study found that female army soldiers have more children in their first two years of enlistment and miss more work than do females in other military branches, in part due to the differences in policies
7:15 pm
on birth control education. the navy's approach is much more comprehensive and it is on that basis that we want to have all of the services providing the same level of education as the navy and air force. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized. mrs. hartzler: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. hartzler: i appreciate what my colleague is trying to do, but i do think that it is unnecessary, it's excessive and redundant. the amendment is already being done. and service members already have access to counseling on methods of contraception, we should not require mandatory training and have this curriculum and sit
7:16 pm
them down for power-point presentations. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. speier: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will e postponed. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number . for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. brindisi: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 9
7:17 pm
printed in house report of 116-143 offered by mr. brindisi of new york. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york, mr. brindisi and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. brindisi: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brindisi: i rise today in support of my bipartisan amendment and thank congressman mckinley. this amendment would instate the long standing department of defense sourcing requirement. this amendment would support american manufacturers and ensure our service members are using flatware and leaves the department of defense should it not be able or affordable. there is historical precedent. from 1976 to 2006, the berry
7:18 pm
amendment included a sourcing requirement for sustainless steel flatware. since then, domestic flat ware production has rebounded. domestic manufacturers have sold over $9 million to the federal government. this reboubd bound has led to a manufacturer base. our american manufacturers have demonstrated their reliability as a stable domestic supplier of sustainless steel flatware to federal customers which supports the long standing sourcing requirement. president trump is a staunch supporter of american manufacturers, a commitment to american jobs that he and i share. congress plays lip service to bringing back good paying american jobs and keeping them here. this is an opportunity for my
7:19 pm
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to actually do. reinstating the provision for sustainless steel flatware is a win-win. it supports local manufacturing in the u.s. and d.o.d. to retain the ability to waive the requirement if it cannot be procured at market prices. in my view, when choosing between supporting and creating american choose, i'll choose hardworking americans every time and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. thornberry: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thornberry: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this is the third year in a row, i believe, we have had this
7:20 pm
attempt to require d.o.d. to for buy to buy knives, example and spoons. i opposed it when it was brought by a republican and i oppose it this year. in all three years, i have yet to hear a fluret justification to dictate where d.o.d. buys its knives, for example and plates and i have not heard it yet. one point, there was a view that certain textiles and food were such importance to the functioning of our military that there needed to be restrictions on where they were procured. i have not heard that when it comes to knives and forks. adding this mandate will hurt our troops, because the only situation in which d.o.d. would choose other than a domestic
7:21 pm
supplier would be if it saves money. if you can buy them cheaper from some other supplier. you are taking away money from ammunition and spending more more than you would need to spend on your plates, knives and forks. i can't tell you how much, probably not a whole lot, but takes away money from other vital programs. and the big question is, where does this stop? i admire all members who try to support manufacturing in his or her district. that's part of our jobs as members of congress. got it. if we are going to say that d.o.d. has to buy plates, cups, knives, forks and spoons from a domestic supplier in my district, what about the soap? where does it stop? i don't think we want to go down
7:22 pm
this road without a clear national security reason to limit the suppliers available to d.o.d. computer chips, that's one thing. but knives and forks, that is one thing. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. brindisi: this amendment would not cost the department of defense any more money but retains all existing waivers. if there were significant negative charges to the price or quality of domestic flatware, the department of defense would use our sources and would be able to import flatware. this amendment would allow american manufactures all over america to compete to provide our service members with american-made flatware, unlike
7:23 pm
the members that were included, flatware was included for 0 years and only removed because domestic supply could not sustain the pentagon's demand at the time. the supply has repounded because of this. i see no reason not to have this. and i would argue it is in our national security interest because supporting american manufacturing and supporting american jobs helps grow our economy and taxpayers and contributes revenue. i would much rather support american manufacturers than support manufacturers in china. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: squart. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i reserve the balance of the time to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
7:24 pm
the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. brindisi: i urge adoption of the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized to close. mr. thornberry: thank you, madam chair. creating domestic jobs in industry after industry is not the primary purpose of the department of defense, especially without a national security reason to do so. what this amendment would do, if it does anything, is to add another category of bureaucracy and burdens that the department of defense has got to go through before it decides whether it is going to procure forks, spoons in place. this hasn't been the law in place. our folks in the military are reasonably well fed. and again, the only reason to do
7:25 pm
it is if the department of defense -- if the domestic supplier is not cheaper. so it costs money, if it does anything. madam chair, lots of important national security issues mandating where the department cupsfense gets its plates, and bols, i do not think is appropriate. and i urge opposition to the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. all time having been yielded, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. mr. thornberry: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be
7:26 pm
postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part bmp of house report 116-143, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. torres: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 116-14 , offered by mrs. tores of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 476, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. tores and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california for five minutes. mrs. torres: i yield myself such time as i may consume. my amendment would maintain congressional oversight over weapons and ensure that dangerous weapons do not independent up in the wrong ends. whatever our view on firearm
7:27 pm
policy may be, we should be able to agree that putting more firearms in the wrong hands would make the world a lot more dangerous. since the passage of the arms export control act in 1976, the state department has overseen licensing authority for exporting deadly weapons, supported by congressional oversight authority. under republican presidents and democratic presidents alike, this has been the system in place. so the experts who spend their lives monitoring hot spots can put u.s. national security interests first and not profit for weapon manufacturer. that's why many members have expressed concern about the administration's plan to change our firearm export licensing system. under the administration's plan,
7:28 pm
firearms and other items and categories in one, two and three would move from the control list and that may sound like a technical change. but it would have real real world consequences. congress would lose oversight over sales preventing this body to object to sales or lead to human rights violations. we would also be taking licensing authority for exporting deadly weapons away from the state department and giving it to the commerce department without any clear evidence that commerce has has the expertise or capacity to handle this new responsibility. this amendment would stop that plan from going forward. and to be clear, this amendment would not prevent the export of firearms. this amendment would not create any new restrictions on firearms
7:29 pm
export. this amendment would keep the status quo in place so we can strengthening the current system. we should go on the side of caution. that's what this amendment does. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: jop the gentleman from new york rise? >> to claim the time until opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i stand in opposition to the amendment offered p by mrs. torres that prohibits the president from listing items in the categories one, two and three. mr. zeldin: one of the hearings was a review on a large interagency process to modernize the list to ensure the state
7:30 pm
department retained oversight over the critical defense articles. the decision to transfer certain services from state to commerce had strong bipartisan support but got caught up in a debate. the process to move certain defense articles has already begun. in fact, here are just some of the categories of weapons that have already moved to commerce licensing controls. . . launch vehicles and missiles, explosives, military aircraft, submeasuresable vessels, tanks, and the list goes on. once again, these defense articles have already moved to commerce control. this rule change should be finalized. after years of input from both sides of the aisle to make the change from state to commerce, there is no reason this decision, which started in the last administration, needs to be delayed any longer. i reserve the balance of my
7:31 pm
time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: madam chair, it is true that parts and components for military equipment have been moved to the c.c.l. however, none of the items previously transferred from the usnl to the c.c.l. were complete weapons, complete weapons that would allow a soldier to aim and fire on a target. the obama administration did not move or even propose to move firearms and ammunition. they saw what happened at newport -- newtown and they knew that we needed to be cautious about these weapons. if the administration's proposal goes through, it would be the first time that the commerce department was put in charge for licensing for lethal weapons designed to kill, to kill people. this is not business as usual. voting yes on this amendment
7:32 pm
will prevent this amendment strad -- prevent this administration from going beyond what the obama administration chose to do by ensuring that experts of firearms and ammunition remain under the jurisdiction of the state department with congressional oversight. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. zeldin: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. -- the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: i will yield one minute to chairman smith. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. this is actually a very important issue and something our committee worked on over a long stretch of time. on export controls. we made very carefully thought-out reforms in that process. the process was a nightmare. dual use was the big problem. you could have, just an example, a bolt that happened to go into
7:33 pm
a piece of military equipment and if you were putting it in something else, you were subject to this far more aggressive export control thing. but we fixed all of that. what the gentlelady is trying to prevent is stepping way over the line here and allowing the export of things that really are clearly within the military use concern. we covered what wasn't. this goes beyond that and really undermines our ability to make sure that we are not giving potential adversaries access to weapons that can jeopardize our national security. so, i do think we need to make this step to make sure that the trump administration doesn't go beyond what we worked out. i realize this word is being overused but we did work this out in a bipartisan way. and with the chairman's help, you know, we included this in the national defense act a few years ago and it was helpful. this goes too far by the president. i think this amendment is perfectly appropriate. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york.
7:34 pm
mr. zeldin: madam chair, it's just important to point out -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. zeldin: firearms -- not all firearms will move to commerce. state department will continue to have oversight for certain firearms, fully automatic firearms, modern artillery, components, parts and accessories designed for automatic firearms and shot guns. the list goes on. it's a long list of firearms-related components that will stay on usml. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york has 3 1/2 minutes. and the gentlewoman from california has 30 seconds. -- seconds remaining. mrs. torres: i am prepared to close. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. torres: madam chair, no one here is arguing against firearm exports. no one here is trying to place new restrictions on manufacturers. what we are asking is to keep the system we have so that congress can continue to do its job and make sure that deadly weapons don't end up in the wrong hands. i urge all my colleagues to
7:35 pm
support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. zeldin: thank you, madam chair. the usml and the c.c.l. are for exports of firearms. this jurisdictional transfer does not govern the illicit transfer of firearms that are often used in violent crimes and human rights abuses overseas. the u.s. government will continue its longstanding end use monitoring efforts, including vetting of potential end users to help prevent human rights abuses. as i stated during my opening remarks, when assessing commerce's ability to take over this responsibility, it is hugely posh to recognize everything that commerce -- important to recognize everything that commerce is already now in charge of. including, as i mentioned earlier, launch vehicles and missiles, explosives, military aircraft, submeasuresable vessels, tanks and that list goes on. so this is not a new function for commerce. it's a transition that started
7:36 pm
years ago during the last administration. this new rule should be finalized. but what shouldn't be lost in this debate is how effectively commerce is handling this responsibility with all of the very important parts, categories that have already moved to their department. i would urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time -- the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is -- mr. zeldin: madam chair, on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will e postponed.
7:37 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in 143. b of house report 116- for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 476, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the chair. i grant myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: the trump administration has proposed to abolish the office of personnel management altogether and give the white house control of government-wide federal employee policies. my simple amendment would
7:38 pm
prohibit that proposed reorganization from being implemented, because, as my subcommittee has uncovered, this proposal lacks merit, justification or even a coherent rationale. and that is the opinion of the government accountability office, not just myself. the g.a.o. has testified that o.p.m.'s leaders, quote, have not established outcome-oriented goals, developed a cost-benefit analysis or implementation plans, and have not fully involved or communicated their efforts with the congress, employees and other key stakeholders. both republicans and democrats on our subcommittee expressed deep skepticism about the so-called plan. my republican counterpart in the senate, senator lankford, has said, quote, it's hard to get to a determination of how this proposal makes things better, unquote. i couldn't agree more. o.p.m.'s 5,500 employees run programs that serve our federal government's 2.7 million active
7:39 pm
employees. o.p.m. administers, for example, the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the world. and processes the world's largest retirement program for 2.5 million federal retirees and their survivors. it provides human services consulting and regulates the implementation of laws essential to our nation's merit-based civil service, including the hatch act, which prohibits federal employees from using federal resources for political and campaign purposes. it also provides dental, vision and medical insurance to eight million federal employees and their families. in short, o.p.m. is the agency that serves the people who serve the american people. on may 21, our subcommittee held a hearing that eviscerated the administration's plan to eliminate o.p.m. i told acting director at that time that the plan was dead on arrival, as submitted, and that she needed to start over, to find a way to work together on a bipartisan basis to rebuild o.p.
7:40 pm
mmple the right way -- o.p.m. the right way. she said they would -- she said she would and took her at her word. despite these clear messages and continued oversight, she failed to live up to her end of the agreement. recently o.p.m. officials announced their intention to lay off or possibly furlough 150 employees because they could not afford to keep them on the payroll, they claim. that threat was made in spite of the proposed appropriation levels which are above what would be needed to fill any budget gap. the administration's inadequate plan to dismantle o.p.m. has been a disaster. now after realizing that it cannot prevail on the merits, the administration is now resorting to blackmail. on june 27, our subcommittee held another hearing to question o.p.m. officials on the lack of documents provided to congress about the plan to eliminate o.p.m. at that hearing, i told o.p.m.
7:41 pm
that they had admitted to failed to determine whether actions they are already taking to eliminate o.p.m. are even legal. they could not provide the underlying legal guidance justifying their action. the language in this simple amendment largely mirrors language already included in the financial services and general government appropriations act for f.y. 2020, already passed by the house last month. we have not seen anything unfortunately from the administration to convince us that any part of this plan is a good idea and would make our government more effective and efficient. g.a.o. has said the administration's proposal could further hinder the federal retirement backlog by creating additional uncertainty. that could make it difficult for o.p.m. to plan large-scale changes in its operations. the acting administrator of o.p.m. and the director of o.m.b. was reported as saying that the administration plans to play chicken with congress, quote-unquote. to aeffectuate its proposal to eliminate o.p.m.
7:42 pm
we must pass this amendment as we did on the appropriations bill to send a clear message that threatening congress is not the way to do business. whether it's with a republican administration or a democratic administration. i urge my colleagues to work with us, to ensure that federal employees are treated with respect and are protected through the o.p.m. process. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for five minutes. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the chair and i thank my good friend from virginia. it is true, on june 21, 2018, president trump's office of management and budget released a plan to reorganize the executive branch. mr. hice: and in that plan they identified numerous ways to
7:43 pm
eliminate duplicative programs to combat waste, fraud and abuse in the government. and one of the recommendations would merge the office of personnel management with the general services administration. i think it's important that we highlight the word merge. this is not an elimination of o.p.m., it is a merger of the two. o.p.m.'s employees work hard to serve retiring federal employees, but unfortunately they're working with outdated 20th century technology and it's extremely difficult for them to be able to attract i.t. talent necessary to operate this outdated i.t. system. so the intent of o.m.b.'s proposed merger is to fix this problem by creating one agency focused on delivering efficient, effective employee services government-wide.
7:44 pm
and admittedly o.m.b. has not shown this is an effective way to address the many problems that are facing o.p.m., and further it's true that despite repeated requests for legal analysis on the administrative authorities and cost-benefit analysis, the oversight and reform committee continues to wait for supporting information. and the gentleman from virginia knows that we have supported that effort to try to get that information so that we can do our job. and the whole challenge that we're facing is indeed on going. and while i share the gentleman's frustration with the lack of information to inform our committee, this amendment is not the answer. we have the same goal, we want to find ways to improve services for federal employees and get retirement benefits for federal retirees, but while we searched
7:45 pm
for a solution, we need to keep all solutions -- all options on the table. and maybe a merger could gain considerable operational efficiencies, including support for o.p.m.'s operations. and if we see any evidence to support that, we should give this proposal serious consideration. we should also give serious consideration to other proposals. and if the chairman of the government operations subcommittee is aware of any other proposals, i would certainly hope and encourage that it would incorporate those proposals into bipartisan oversight efforts. but in the meantime, this amendment does nothing to help
7:46 pm
o.p.m.'s mission and closes options to help o.p.m. and for that reason, i stand in opposition of this amendment, but look forward to working with the gentleman as we move forward. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: how much time is eft on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman from georgia has 1.5 minutes remaining. mr. connolly: i'm prepared to allow my friend to close and then i will close. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. hice: i would reiterate that we need to keep all options on the table. and this amendment takes a possible solution off the table. and i think we just need to do
7:47 pm
further research and consider this. and i just would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: i'm sad my good friend from georgia shares my concerns feels the need to oppose an amendment that is designed to prevent a very bad thing from happening that has no rationale and no supporting and threaten touchdown congress with extortion. we will rick 150 people if you don't do what we want by october 1. no one in this body should tolerate. this amendment needs to pass as it did in the appropriations billing. i urge its passage. the chair: the the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those opposed, no. . those in favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair, the
7:48 pm
ayes have it -- the gentleman from georgia. the gentleman from requests a vote. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 in house report 116-14 . for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part brn of house report 116-14 , offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 476, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. mr. connolly: i yield myself five minutes.
7:49 pm
this amendment is simple and partisan and first of all, i want to thank my friend and colleague mr. peter king for co-sponsor understanding this amendment. he is a veteran and his support is appreciated. our amendment does two things. irst, it cod pies existing defense department policy which requires d.o.d. to report to the ckground system of members purchasing firearms. this codifies existing d.o.d. policy as outlined in the notruction 400.06 and places new legal restrictions on access to firearms. this provision is responsive to the report, evaluation of
7:50 pm
service to domestic violence incidents within the military. in that report, the i.g. found the d.o.d. has failed consistently to report domestic violence convictions that would disqualify a service member from purchasing a firearm. one of the abuses was devon kelly, who entered a house of worship in texas in november of 2017 and killed 27 people with guns that he should have been prohibited from purchasing under current law. according to the i.g., of the 219 domestic violent cases examined, 201 were found not to comply, not to comply with one of the defense department policies with reporting domestic violence. 90% of the cases were not
7:51 pm
reported and four out of five cases were not reported to the f.b.i. that's a problem. because we know it works. according to the f.b.i. from november 0, 1988 to december 31, were 06,800 gun permits denied while protective orders existed. codifying the requirement gives it more teeth and gives congress to give test safety measures to protect military and their families. second part of the amendment would task the amendment with creating a data base of military protective orders issued in response, such npo's or establishing a process could issue protective orders in response to domestic violence. this provision is responsive to
7:52 pm
the inspector general report and failure.orce's under current law, a military protective order issued in response does not prohibit an individual from purchasing a firearm. but a civilian protective order would. they need to consider legislation to specifically include military protective orders. and in the national defense authorization act, included the provision which would have mandated that d.o.d. create a mandate that judges could issue protective orders that would trigger in the republican senate. and we are concerned billion mandates regarding this manner. that's why we adopted a middle
7:53 pm
ground and require d.o.d. to study to comply with the n.p.o.'s and the gun control act and establishing a system that the system would have blibbed. according to the department of female affairs, 0% of affairs have reported and 22% active occurred while on duty. 11,00 out of 00 their spouse is a member of the military. this amendment is not about protecting civilians only but protecting those in uniform especially. in closing, i want to thank the organizations that have endorsed this bipartisan amendment, the national coalition for domestic violence, domestic violence, service womens action network
7:54 pm
and protect our veterans. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. thornberry: i claim the time numb opposition. the chair: without objection. the the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thornberry: the first part of the gentleman's amendment is certainly appropriate. there is no question that d.o.d. did not do what it should in reporting to the national data base and there have been instances where that made a difference, tragic instances. requiring d.o.d. to report within three days, i think as the gentleman from virginia, codifying the current policy makes sense. i hope someday we will require state and local governments to report within three days as well, because as the study was
7:55 pm
conducted on d.o.d.'s failure to report to the data base, some state and localities are even worse. i think we all up our game when it comes to that. i want to express concerns about the second part of the gentleman's amendment. it requires a feasibility study on a military data base for military protective orders. if it is a feasibility study whether it is technically feasible, but it is important for members to understand that military protective orders are issued by commanders and do not have any sort of due process that is sorlted with civilian protective orders or much due process at all. military members can go and get a civilian protective order with appropriate due process. but right now, a military
7:56 pm
protective order by commanders is just issued at the request of the victim or the victim's advocate and there are opinions where this process has been abused. i think we should be careful in treading down a road where we do not provide due process with significant consequences. as the gentleman noted, there are some related provisions in the senate bill. i think it would be appropriate to take this measure and look keep deeper into those consequences, especially to ensure that all service members have due process as well as our service members and civilians have the protection that the gentleman is seeking to achieve. i yield back. the chair: all time having been yielded. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
7:57 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in art b of house report 116-143, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. shalala: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in part b of house eport 116-143 offered by ms. shalala of florida. the chair: the gentlewoman from from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida for five minutes. shale shale i yield myself -- ms. shalala: i yield myself such time as i may consume.
7:58 pm
the department of defense to issue an assistance program provides financial assistance to service members for voluntary off-duty education programs in support of personal development. tuition assistance is offered in the classroom or distance learning are part of an a.m. democratic degree. these courses must be offered by schools that are recognized by the unions department of education and they must abide by all rules governing the higher education sector. because of a loophole that ists in federal law, however many for-profit colleges target veterans and service members with recruiting tactics in order to collect as much as g.i. bill and revenue as possible.
7:59 pm
in fact, research has demonstrated that the for-profit college sector is the only sector that increases education with additional student aid becomes available. as one president turned whistleblower turned veterans organization and federal officials last summer, we cleaned up all our materials, t behind closed doors, our ecruiters will say say anything. this is simply unacceptable. through the selfless sacrifice uniform,n and women in we receive freedom, we owe an he an immense debt of gratitude to serve and must not allow anyone to abuse their benefits.
8:00 pm
madam speaker, this amendment is simple and will ensure that active duty service members and their families are not taken advantage of by any by the predatory for-frost sect or. hey need to publish the d.o.d. tuition are funds at institutions and conduct an audit for for-profit that fails to meet the standards set in the higher education act of 1965. . . they have a duty to stake holders to maximize profits and that is determine by the amount of revenue brought in and profits made, not by the quality of education provided to
8:01 pm
students. we speak about good and bad actors in the for-profit college sector and this amendment -- this amendment seeks to tell us just that. i know that my good friends on the other side of the aisle have always supported our veterans. i know they deeply care about fiscal responsibility policies and transparency. supporting our veterans and active duty service members has historically drawn large bipartisan support. it's incumbent on us as elected officials to put forth an accountability system that distinguished bad actors from good actors and look out for the american taxpayer and protect ours military community. madam speaker, this is personal for me. every generation of my family has served in our country's military. and all have used their educational benefits. i know the value of a good education. i have seen it firsthand in my
8:02 pm
four decades as an educator and as a college president. our veterans deserve better than policies that allow bad actors in our education system to take advantage of their service and their sacrifice. i want to thank my colleagues who have worked with me on this issue and my good friend congresswoman katy porter for co-sponsoring this amendmentful i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and stand on the side of our service members. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: thank you, madam chair. i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the jerusalem is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chair my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are relentless in their pursuit to eliminate an entire sector of post-secondary
8:03 pm
education. proprietary institutions or tax -- are tax paying institutions. in their zellous efforts to bury these institutions under additional retape and redundant bureaucratic mandates democrats are wasting taxpayer dollars and valuable pentagon time of i cede in our education an labor committee hearings an i'll say it again and again, i support accountability for all post-secondary education institutions. students should not be taken advantage of or harmed at any institution. that's why congress and the armed services have tough standards in place that hold all institutions accountable for taxpayer dollars. these requirements include two agencies are already overseeing schools participating in aid programs. the pentagon is required through the tuition assistance program to evaluate the educational
8:04 pm
institution's overall effectiveness in administering its courses and general overall customer satisfaction and the department of education is tax with and as the -- has the expertise to monitor the school's fiscal health according standards by the society of ertified public accountants. in addition to doubling bureaucracy this amendment fails to help students an their families in any meaningful way. instead of voting for this amendment i invite representative shalala and others to join me in reform tissue reforming the higher education act to hold all institutions accountable to all students. i appreciate my colleague for saying that her colleagues on this side of the aisle support our veterans. i agree that all veterans di deserve our thanks and all the freedom they have fought for including the right to attend the school of their choice. i strongly oppose this amendment
8:05 pm
and urge my colleagues to vote no. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized, or has 30 seconds remains. ms. shalala: .o.d. has taken steps before to ensure tuition assistance funds are being spent properly when those institutions have been identified. my amendment allows the secretary to broadly apply oversight, much-needed oversight, to a sector that continues to defraud service member and siphoning off billions of there ares from the federal government. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i would like to inquire of the chair how much time is remaining. the chair: the gentlewoman has 2 3/4 minutes remaining. ms. foxx: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania,
8:06 pm
one and a quarter minutes. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one and a quarter mins. >> thank you@ranking member for yielding. i rise in opposition to this amendment which seeks to limit education choices for our nation's servicemens. under current law, institutions receiving federal funding must meet the financial responsibility standards under the higher education act. so the department of defense and the department of education are already required to oversee and evaluate an educational institution's fiscal health and academic programming. they are already required to do that. mr. smucker: this ealt is not only unnecessary but it's also misleading. let's be honest about what this amendment is really about. it's just another effort at eliminating all for-profit higher education institutions. just a few weeks ago, i met with group of vet reasons from my district who are attending or recently graduated from y.t.i.
8:07 pm
career lancaster. they each shared similar stories about how traditional institutions of higher education and i have a lot of good ones in my district, but in this particular instance they did not meet their needs. why y.t.i. institute did meeter that needs an offered them a pathway to fast track them into the work force. why should we take this option away? these veterans were very concerned that the programs which have work sod well for them and many others may be eliminated by this verregulation. ms. foxx: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. smucker: if my colleagues truly were interested in improving accountability then they should apply these standards to all institutions of high elearn, not just the ones that they dislike. i strongly oppose this unneeded
8:08 pm
amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has ex-peered. the gentlewoman has one and a quarter mins left. ms. foxx: i yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam chair. i'm a u.s. army veteran that used the g.i. bill. while i strongly support being good stewards of federal financial resources ex-pened by the department of defense to various educational institutions across the narkse the amendment offered by my friend goes too far by including the term proprietary when referring to universities. mr. roe: they are already reviewing whether certain colleges an universities meet their standards. let's continue to hold all universities accountable for the standards not just a select fewle there's no reason for this amendment to exclude any colleges because all students the serve to know that their choice of school meets federally set financial standards for the
8:09 pm
public, private, or proprietary. fortunately, this is already happening. unfortunately, this amendment is duplicative of the work of the department of defense is conducting and is an effort to further categorize colleges and yuferes and hold them to different levels of scrutiny. let's work together to make sure that all students have access to a high quality, affordable education in a setting and format that works for them and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady has 15 seconds. ms. foxx: i want to reit late again what i said before. we support veterans, we want them to get a great education, but we want them to have the choices that they have fought for. they have sacrificed for freedoms for our country and we -- and they deserve to have all the free toms that they can possibly need and i yield back. the chair: all time having expired this equestion is on the amendment offered by the
8:10 pm
gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it. a recorded vote is requested. those -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further po seedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in part b of house report 116-143. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. omar: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in part b of house report 116-143, offered by ms. omar of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house
8:11 pm
resolution 476, the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. omar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota for five minutes. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. omar: thank you, madam chair my amendment man taits reporting on the financial costs and national security benefits of the department of defense's operations overseas. this includes the cost of operating, improving and maintaining military infrastructures both on our permanent basis and installations and at short-term contingency locations. in order for congress to properly conduct its oversight and appropriation rules -- role we need to have a transparent explanation of how much each of these operations cost. we also need a transparent justification for how each of these operations contribute to keeping americans safe.
8:12 pm
we hear a constant drum beat from the other side of the aisle on the need for fiscal responsibility when it comes to our domestic spending, but when it come time to fund the pentagon, no amount is too much, no project is too expensive. even though we spend more on the military than the next 10 countries combined. when we talk about fiscal responsibility and wasteful spending, the pentagon must not be above reproach. we have to ask what is actually necessary for our national ecurity and what is part of an outrageously bloated budget that lines the pockets of defense contractors? so this amendment is an important step in accountability for the pentagon's spending. it is necessary for the department that cannot pass abaudit. the american people deserve to know what their tax dollars are
8:13 pm
being spent on and not take it on blind faith that every dollar that's given to the pentagon is a dollar that is protecting their safety. it is especially true for our overseas operations. when we ask our men an women in uniform to serve abroad and be separated from their families, not just during wars but to the -- but to man the bases we maintain in places like germany, japan, and honduras, we need to be asking them to do that for a reason. this is why my amendment requires the pentagon to justify national skirt benefits of overseas operations. so i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and making sure that we have an accountability in how we spend our taxpayer dollars. i yield time to -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman
8:14 pm
reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam chairman, there are a number of flaws with this amendment and i oppose it and i would ask everyone to vote no on it. there's a number of reasons why this is not a good amendment. for one thing, what is being asked for in this amendment has already been done. i have some documents here i'd like to show you, this is the defense budget overview. t goes into exhaustive detail, hundreds, or thousands of line items on where the pentagon spending is going right now. domestic, foreign, everything. this is available to all members of congress. mr. lamborn: this is the national security strategy. the national defense strategy. and just a smattering of other document the missile defense review. the national defense strategy
8:15 pm
commission. the nuclear posture review. all of these documents do what is being asked for. so it is unnecessary, any member of congress, even if they're not on the armed services committee, can come to the committee, can ask the pentagon, can ask staff on committee, for all of these documents. these are already available. pentagon to he give it back to us is a big waste of their time and money. for that reason and there are other reasons -- i'll see if there are any further arguments, but this is unnecessary and wasteful and i urge a no vote and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. ms. omar: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota has 2.5 minutes. ms. omar: two minutes -- minute
8:16 pm
and a half to the distinguished chair, the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i strongly support this amendment. the documents that the gentleman pointed to don't begin to scratch the surface that the gentlelady is raising. these are prod documents and i'm sure -- they might mention in there how much money they serve in oversees' bases. i'm surprised they outline what their purpose is. and that's what this amendment calls for. not the broad strategy. but how much money are we spending and what do they contribute to that national security policy? and i have read through those documents. they do not have that type of detail. they point out, here's why we are all in the places in asia. but they don't go through the bases and say why this
8:17 pm
particular place. we are overseas where people are not aware of. not just the big ones but a lot of placer and the gentlelady is correct that the inability that the pentagon doesn't know all of the property that they know. they can't document it. getting this piece of it documented would be helpful and would answer the question, is the money well spent and is it advancing the policy that is outlined in all of those documents. i think this is necessary and appropriate and would be helpful to getting us to a more efficient defense budget. that is a major defense. we want to make sure they are accountable and spending it well. the chair: does the gentlelady reserve? ms. omar: i reserve.
8:18 pm
the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> it isn't easy or practical to do what the amendment is proposing. mr. lamborn: there is not a fine line what is overseas or what is domestic. i have a brigade team in my district that is now in afghanistan. one of the things that is called for to be spepsed in this report is training exercises. when the brigade combat team is in colorado the trining to go over to afghanistan, what point do you draw the line and say that is domestic and everything beyond that is foreign? is it when they step on the airplane or when the airplane lands in afghanistan or doing live-fire exercises in colorado. where do you draw the line? this isn't a well-written
8:19 pm
amendment, it is impractical. but the worst objection to this amendment is it abdicates responsibilities. the chairman said let us tell them what they are doing. we determine that's what they should be doing. this amendment is calling for the national security benefits to be told us by the department of defense. that's our oversight role as congress. we oversee the department of defense. we determine if they are giving us the national security benefits that we tell them to give us. we don't tell them -- tell us what you are doing and if it is ok and helpful. they tell us what they are doing and specify, including the dollar amount and we determine with our jofrle sight role that
8:20 pm
fulfills the national security purposes they are supposed to be doing. the way this amendment is written, we are abdicating that responsibility to them. that is congress east role and not their role to tell us -- that's our role as oversight and for that reason alone, we should reject this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. omar: i agree with my colleague. it is our responsibility to have an oversight. and this is simply what this amendment does. it makes sure we have an understanding of what our money is being spent on and the benefits that that money will get us. we have to have a clear understanding of what the purposes are of the 800 military bases we have around the world and how much money is it costing
8:21 pm
us to continue to operate them. that is simply what we are asking for. that's what the american people want to know and that's the kind of responsibility we shouldn't abdicate. i want to make sure that we have a report that clearly lays out our -- the kind of money that is being spent and the kind of benefits that we are getting for it. i yield my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: how much time is remaining? the chair: one minute remaining. mr. lamborn: to conclude, let me offer this to every member of congress, almost 00 pages of thousands of line entries of where every dollar in the pentagon is going. we have that information. why should they have to do that all over again.
8:22 pm
and let's exercise our responsibility and not have them tell us fulfills national security. and we will determine if that fulfills national security. so for all those reasons, madam chairman, i would say because it is wasteful, impractical and abdicates our response bill, i urge that we rego ject this. if anyone wants to show initiative. this information is available, right here rment of. i yield back. the chair: all time having expired, the question comes on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the chair has concluded that the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. mr. lamborn: i ask for a recorded vote.
8:23 pm
the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from minnesota will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in 116-143. house report for what purpose does does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i have an amendment at the desk offering as the designee for ms. clark. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in part b of house report 116-143 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.
8:24 pm
the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. this amendment is straightforward. currently all members of congress are prohibited from having contracts with the federal government. as a member of congress, if you own something, you can't lease or rent it to the government and similarly, you can't rent or lease something from the government. as members of congress we could vm undue influence or get a deal that other members of the public could not get. therefore we would have an unfair advantage and using our positions to enrich ourselves which is supposed to be prohibited. this amendment is straightforward and adds the president, vice president and cabinet members who cannot contract with the federal government, either the federal government leasing something to us or leasing something back to the government that is owned by
8:25 pm
the president, vice president and members of the cabinet. they would have more control over this than members of congress who does not have the power over the assets that the president and vice president and cabinet members. it prevents them from doing that so there is no ethical problem, so the president, vice president and cabinet members cannot profit off the office they are in. and this is the way we maintain a transparent government. and it will improve the ethics of our government. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment is nothing other than once again an attack
8:26 pm
on president trump and his family. we have seen this time and time and time again from the democrat majority. they are simply obsessed with president trump. and instead of doing the hard work of governing, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are continuing to waste our time here in congress with their never-ending attempts to go after the president. and as it relates to this specific amendment, we have seen this amendment. it was in h.r. 1, the so-called for-the-people act which passed the house on party-line votes. it was a bad idea in march and still a bad idea. if an incoming president, vice president or cabinet office that took office while holding a contract with the federal government, this amendment would criminally find that individual
8:27 pm
after taking office. and since the president has not committed a crime under existing laws, this majority is considering making new crimes in order to go after the president. how far will they go to go after the president. the if we ignore reprehensible aspects of this ill, this bill amendment has implications that goes beyond this president. we have seen talented individuals, not politics that can bring a refreshing change to the swamp, but this amendment would drive qualified people by imposing more and more discxds difficulties incentives on individuals with actual, real world experience. this amendment is nothing more han a weakly veiled attempt to
8:28 pm
make new crimes out of business decisions that occurred long before the president took office. and i urge my colleagues to oppose this will amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from eorgia reserves. mr. smith: this doesn't require someone to commit a crime but divest of your interests if you move into this position. all members of congress have to do. we are not permitted to have outside income over what we have as a member of congress. if you are elected to congress and you have another job, you have to leave that job and let go of that particular business interest. does not require them to be criminalized. that's like saying a law taking bribes, there is something you
8:29 pm
can do. don't take the bribe and you will be ok. as far as our quote obsession with the president, i couldn't help but laugh, instead of doing the hard work of government. i'm counting how many hours i have slept in the last month and half to put a bill that fully funds the defense department. let me assure you, we are capable of doing both. we are capable of doing the hard work of government and trying to make sure that our legitimated officials are at lease ethical so the american public doesn't think that people get elected to enrich themselves its. this is not something new. we have ethics laws of what you elected. and member of i think it is incredibly important that we have ethical
8:30 pm
standards and make sure that elected officials are not able to enrich themselves based on being in the elected position they are in. and this amendment is targeting good government, which is part of our job. i reserve whatever time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. . 4 mr. hice: the executive branch is already required to divest. as far as finding it laughable that i made a comment about their ability to govern, i don't find that laughable at all. week after week after week, we are coming in this people's messagingting time on bills and amendments such as we are doing even right now that have no chance of going anywhere
8:31 pm
, an absolute waste of time and a continual evidence being proved right before us that this majority has lost its capacity to govern because they're -- because of their obsession to go after this president. and this amendment before us re is a clear example of yet another step in that direction and this is what it is and i -- with that, i yield back the plns of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of my time. i don't know where the gentleman was over the course of the last month, we passed 10 appropriations bills and took hundreds of votes on the substantive business of funding the government. all right. that's not a waste of time. i realize the senate has decided they're not going to do it but it's not our job to pass appropriation -- but it's our job to pass appropriations bills, and that's what we did for the last month plus.
8:32 pm
now we're working on the defense bill. i hope the gentleman would think of that as a waste of time. it's incredibly important. we passed an entire rewrite of the ethics laws of the house of representatives. whether you support it or not it's not a waste of time. we have passed countless other bills and important pieces of legislation. the senate hasn't been doing much, i understand their rules are more complicated so i'm sympathetic, but we are working on the substantive ability to govern. even if you don't agree with the bills and this is where bipartisanship becomes difficult because as we're doing that, to have someone stand up and say that's not what government is supposed to be doing? what are we doing here. that's what we should be doing. part of that should be slg an ethical government. ethical, elected members of congress. ethical president, vice president, and cabinet members. as i said, there's a bunch of rules governing that. this is one more i think would help and make it appropriate. so i urge support for the amendment and with that, i yield back the balance of my time.
8:33 pm
the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the chair has exermed -- the chair has determined that the ayes have it. mr. hice: madam chair. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: pursuant to houseres. 476 i offer amendments en bloc number two. the chair: the clerk will dez ig nay the amendments en bloc.
8:34 pm
the clerk: en bloc amendment consisting of amendments 0, 71, 79, 3, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 86, 87, 2, 83, 84, 85, printed , 91, 92, 93 in part b of house report 116-143, offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington -- 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 recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you. i'm going to reserve the balance of my time.
8:35 pm
the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: we have no speakers, i wreeled back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back, mr. smith of washington is recognized. mr. smith: i ask for a yes vote on the en bloc package and yield back. the chair: all time having expyred, the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from the state of washington seek recognition? mr. smith: pursuant to house resolution 476 i offer amendments en bloc number three. the chair: pursuant to house
8:36 pm
resolution 476 -- the clerk will designate the en bloc amendment. the clerk: en bloc number 3, consisting of amendments 99, red 94, 95,96, 97, 98, 0, 101, 102, 103, 14, 105, 06, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 12, 113, 114, 115, 116 and 117 printed in part b of house report 116-143 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 recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: again, madam chair, we don't have any speakers on this one, i'll just observe. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves.
8:37 pm
mr. smith: i didn't, i was still talking. i just said we don't have any speakers. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i was just going to say that in fact we've been doing so many votes on the house floor it appears we have worn down the members of congress, we don't have as many people over here to speak as we normally do in our en bloc packages. we don't have any speakers, i urge a yes vote on the en bloc package and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield back the balance of the time. the chair: up a tile -- all time having expired, the question is on the en bloc amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendment is agreed o.
8:38 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: madam chair, pursuant to house resolution 476, i offer amendments en bloc number four. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 4 consisting of amendments 118, 124, 20, 121, 122, 123, 27, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 145, 41, 142, 143, 144, and 146, printed in part b of house report 116-143, offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: pursuant to house
8:39 pm
resolution 476, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you madam chair. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the chairman, chairman smith, and his staff, for working with our office and also the ranking member also and his staff for working on making this a bipartisan amendment. i would like to speak about an westernt that will do a hemispheric resource assessment. it will require the office of the secretary of defense to contract for the study of the sufficiency of the u.s. resources in the western hemisphere by the department of defense, the department of the state, the department of state, and the united states agency for international development. the purpose is for congress to
8:40 pm
receive an unbiased view of all the u.s. investments in the region. with an ever-increasing investment by china, iran, russia, and latin america and the latin american region we must refocus our efforts with our southern neighbors. russia has sign -- is flying nuclear-capable bombers out of venezuela near our border. china is nsting $250 billion in latin america by 2025. a new study showed that china has become more popular and -- than the united states and many of the latin american countries. the united states must remain vigilant in latin america and help the region from succumbing to the chinese, to the russian, and to the iranian influences. again this western hemisphere resource assessment is the first step -- first step in helping refocus the u.s. efforts in the region and i certainly ask my colleagues to support this
8:41 pm
amendment, the en bloc amendment, and again i want to thank the chairman, chairman smith, his staff, the ranking member and his staff again, for allowing this amendment to be part of the en bloc. i ask you to support this and madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. does the gentleman reserve? ok. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i have no requests for time and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: we have no further requests for time either. i urge a yes vote on en bloc package number 4 and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
8:42 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are greed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i move that the committee now rise. chip the question is on the motion that the committee now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
8:43 pm
the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 2500, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2500 and come to no resolution thereon.
8:44 pm
the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. castro, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. castro: thank you, madam speaker. i want to speak tonight about e very deep humanitarian situation at the u.s.-mexico border. immigration has been the lifeblood of our nation for generations. the united states has been blessed with people from all over the world have come to our country fleeing repression,
8:45 pm
dictators, violence, poverty, desperation, and seeking opportunity in our nation that has been built up by those very same people to become the most prosperous and powerful nation on the face of the earth. but our immigration system is roken. our enforcement system is broken and tonight we want to talk about what we have learned after repeated visits to the department of homeland security facilities operated by customs i.c.e., protection, and also h.h.s. facilities operated by the office of refugee resettlement and i will be joined by jimmy gomez who represents part of los angeles and a congressman from florida and perhaps other members of
8:46 pm
congress this evening. before i turn it over to you, i want to speak for a second about what is known as the largest for-profit center that is operated to detain children in homestead, florida. and it is a massive operation. the operators of this facility per dayr $700 per child and there are many troubling things going on at homestead and about a system that keeps growing and growing at the state of profit and holding and detaining children, toddlers, longer and longer. and my colleague is to describe his visits there. >> i thank the gentleman from
8:47 pm
texas. i thank you for putting together this special order hour and it is timely to say the least. there are many borders that our nation has and we have a lot of focus on the southwestern borders such as in texas, arizona and new mexico and california and call and in florida, the caribbean ocean surrounding us and a short ither plane ride or longer sea voyage to our peninsula. and we have immigrants from venezuela -- venezuela laila and cube ab americans and folks of mexican descent who are farmworkers in polk county.
8:48 pm
and yes, we have many refugees, particularly children, who have left the triangle in central america and are part of this crisis at the border. i got the opportunity to be able to visit the homestead fall silt that blocked several of us from touring it. and saw 900 children between the ges of 12-17 that were in a fa silt that wasn't made for over 500. and there are a few of us who spoke spanish and talked briefly to the children and they told us not to. but you know the responsibility. mr. castro: you were told as a member of congress who has
8:49 pm
oversight authority, you were told not to speak to anybody that was inside that facility. mr. soto: no speaking to. no photos and then we were give quen a song and dance about how well everybody was treated. el came from honduras, salvador and nicaragua and the strife from drug cartels from there and i saw 6 to eight beds per room, sometimes more, in rooms that couldn't be any gger than 10 by 15 and two showers. and i saw classrooms and recreation facilities in makeshift tents these big puffy ones that were not clearly not
8:50 pm
permanent concerns. mr. castro: you have a hurricane season about the tents that they could withstand the tents. mr. soto: they would be at great risk if a hurricane hit south florida and they are south of miami and i want to talk a little bit about the root causes of it. we go to the triangle. these families are fleeing as an act of love, because if their kids stay, they could be brought into these cartel drug wars and may not even survive at the age or go and live. one of the root causes, the
8:51 pm
foreign aid funding down in the triangle hasn't been where it was under the owe baum ave administration. and this idea that we have to delain detain all these kids, which has helped manufacture this border crisis and could easily be resolved by getting them to families in the united states. many of them are here to visit families and we could have ways to track everybody. everything is as tough as an ankle bracelet and a case worker. but they chose not to do that. they chose to hold these kids back, because they don't want them to go out in the population of the united states. so if we adjusted things the way the last two, three presidents did, we wouldn't

103 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on