Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, we need to stand by our allies and oppose Iran. This amendment is not helpful. I encourage all of our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairwoman, section 702 authorizes the intelligence community to target the communications of non-U.S. persons located outside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes. This FISA section 702 program is an important tool for the intelligence community to gather foreign intelligence information to protect the homeland against international terrorism, weapons proliferation, hostile actions, cyber actors, and other threats to the national security. Importantly, its focus is on foreigners located abroad. It does not allow the intelligence community to target U.S. persons. Section 702 collections already include significant protection for civil liberties and privacy. While the amendment may be well-intentioned, I fear it will upset the delicate balance reflected in current wording of this provision. The recent comprehensive review and bipartisan reauthorization of section 702 by Congress would strongly suggest that additional changes to the program without a full review of the potential impact is ill-advised. Madam Chairwoman, intelligence officials from the Obama administration and the Trump administration have asserted, as FBI Director Christopher Wray recently reiterated, that section 702 is one of the most viable tools we have in our toolbox to keep America safe. Accordingly, I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Visclosky for the great working relationship we have had going through this legislation in detail. We do this for the men and women who serve the United States military. We want to make sure that they have the best quality of life and, obviously, that we procure the best weapons that are available to make sure that if ever we are in unfortunate circumstances, we do not have a fair fight. It has been a great experience. I also thank all the staff for the great work that they have done on both the majority and the minority. I do want to point out one thing to the chairman. There is going to be a meeting tomorrow at the White House, hopefully, about a budget agreement. Hope springs eternal, but, hopefully, we can get a budget agreement with the White House, the House, and the Senate so that we don't have to go into sequestration later this year, which, as the gentleman knows, would be a disaster for the United States military. Let's wish them well as they try to work out an agreement. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, this amendment risks undermining the readiness of our military at a time when we can least afford it. It does so by prohibiting the implementation of a careful and thoughtful policy developed by a panel of military experts last year regarding military service by transgender individuals. Then-Secretary of Defense Mattis wrote that, in his best professional judgment, allowing military service by transgender individuals in the absence of this policy could ``undermine the readiness, disrupt the unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military that is not conductive to military effectiveness and lethality.'' This current policy is not--I repeat, not--a ban on service by transgender individuals. It carefully balances the readiness needs of the military with the medical needs of transgender individuals who wish to serve. As new recruits, those individuals can serve openly under their biological gender so long as they have not suffered from gender dysphoria within 36 months and have not undergone gender transition procedures. Furthermore, the new policy only applies to those seeking to join the military after its April 12, 2019, implementation and allows the service and the Coast Guard to waive its application in individual cases. This issue is not one of social policy but of deployability. Individuals with medical conditions that do not allow them to deploy, such as those identified in the policy, adversely impact military readiness and reduce the military's warfighting capability. I would also point out that individuals who require daily injections for other medical conditions are also not deployable, such as people who have diabetes. Madam Chair, the military is an institution with one primary mission: to fight and win our Nation's wars. Anything that interferes with its readiness for that mission poses an unacceptable risk to our men and women in uniform. Unfortunately, this amendment poses just such a risk by disregarding the military's professional judgment and interfering with the policy developed to preserve warfighting readiness. Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of 2020 funds for development of a long-range standoff weapon program. A long-range standoff missile will be a nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile that the U.S. Air Force is scheduled to first deploy in the early 2030s. The LRSO is necessary for maintaining the deterrent capability currently provided by a rapidly aging air-launched cruise missile. According to the Department of Defense, the current air-launched cruise missile is already decades beyond its originally planned service time. As General John Hayden, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, has stated: ``The ALCM is encountering sustainability and viability issues from age-related material failures . . . and diminishing manufacturing sources. Parts and materials designed for a 10-year service life are now 35 years old and are obsolete.'' In addition to severe problems with maintenance and reliability, the ALCM has a significant degraded ability to survive modern air defense systems. We also need the long-range standoff weapon because conventional air-launched cruise missiles are unable to effectively meet the same deterrence requirements. Madam Chair, sustaining the nuclear standoff capability in the air leg of the U.S. strategic triad strengthens our deterrence. Conventional weapons are not capable of fulfilling the nuclear-armed cruise missile's contribution to, and role in, an effective deterrence and reassurance of U.S. allies. Effective deterrence requires that an adversary believes that the United States can and may respond in kind to a nuclear attack. For these reasons, I urge the defeat of this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

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

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

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

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I will be very quick. I am shocked: The Russians are cheating. Now that our treaty obligations are suspended, the United States needs to move forward with developing ground-launched INF missile capability. Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, do you trust the Russians? I don't trust the Russians. Those who think they are making the world safer by refusing to support the programs should remember the ancient Latin adage, ``If you want peace, prepare for war.'' That has never been more applicable than in regard to this program. Madam Chair, this amendment is vital to maintaining deterrence and peace. I would urge my colleagues to support it. I might point out that the Russians are under the perception that this is a strategic imperative from their perspective. So from my perspective, let's remove that misconception and vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, and I thank the Defense Subcommittee chairman for working with our side to include many amendments important to our Members. The chairman has been a great partner and has been very fair throughout this process. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, I just find it unnecessary. There is robust funding in the bill for this activity to fight encroachment on our military bases, and that is really kind of between the local government and local State and local groups. Madam Chair, I make that point, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Granger and Chairwoman Lowey both for their leadership and expertise throughout this process. I also acknowledge the work of Chairman Visclosky. Mr. Chair, I am grateful for Mr. Visclosky's dedication to our U.S. servicemembers and our national security and for his willingness to listen and work with us to put together this bill. I very much appreciate the bipartisan way in which the gentleman has managed the Defense Subcommittee. It has been an honor to work with him, and I look forward to finishing our work on time. There is a lot of good work in this bill. However, the United States faces an increasingly challenging geopolitical landscape, one that requires a strong U.S. military to help maintain global peace and stability. While we have been at war in the Middle East for nearly two decades, other regions of the world have been watching us and chipping away at our military superiority. Unfortunately, the funding levels recommended in this bill are inadequate to enable us to address the needs of our military and maintain our superiority over our adversaries. The fiscal year 2020 Defense bill before the House today includes $622 billion in base funding and another $68 billion in overseas contingency operations, or OCO, funding, for a total of $690 billion. The amount is roughly $8 billion less than the request. This funding level is not adequate to address the myriad of issues that we face around the world, including from an increasingly aggressive Russia. Just last week, a Russian destroyer came dangerously and recklessly close to one of our vessels in the Philippine Sea. Shortchanging defense funding would send the wrong message to our adversaries. Let's be clear: We do not want a fair fight. Funding the Department to ensure our advantage against any threat is the best deterrent to war. In addition to the low funding levels in the bill, it includes a number of troubling provisions adopted in committee, including a new restriction on the Department's ability to provide lawful assistance to other agencies in combating the real crisis on our southern border. We cannot continue to ignore the reality along our southern border. The sheer numbers of people coming across our borders, in the hundreds of thousands, now require the use of military bases to house migrants. The situation is untenable, and the Congress must update our immigration laws to make the process more rational and enforceable. Restricting the President's ability to address the crisis will only make the problem worse and put more people at risk as they embark on a dangerous journey. I am also concerned with the language striking the Authorization for Use of Military Force. This provision would repeal the current authorization 240 days after enactment. This is a serious topic that needs to be debated by the authorizing committees. Including this language in an appropriations bill with little debate and no committee hearings or witnesses is not the correct way to address this matter. Broadcasting to our enemies the stop date of any military operation is reckless and irresponsible. Then there is the issue of numbers. In divided government, bipartisanship is essential. Unfortunately, until we reach agreement on the top-line spending levels that the President will also support, I remain concerned that the Defense funding bill will be crafted in an environment in which we have no budgetary certainty. Without a top-line budget agreement, and a 2-year deal with the House, the Senate, and the White House to relieve the budget caps put in place by the Budget Control Act, we are not making spending decisions based in reality. If we cannot come to an agreement on a budget caps deal, we face sequestration in the coming year. The impacts would reverse all the progress on readiness and modernization we have achieved over the last 2 years. Sequestration would cut $20 billion from the Navy and $29 billion from the Air Force, and it would stop 100 Army programs. We need all the parties to come together at the table now to make the tough but critical budget decisions. We know all too well how devastating budgetary ambiguity and continuing resolutions can be for defense planning and the real-world impact it has on training, readiness, and quality-of-life issues. That is a recipe for disaster for both our military and the American people. That is why I cannot support this bill at this time. I want to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to develop bills for fiscal year 2020 that meet our Nation's defense and border security priorities in a fiscally responsible manner. Given the chairman's nature, I am sure that he will be an able partner and leader in any effort to strike a budget agreement and certainly happy to help avert sequestration. Finally, I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. I appreciate their diligence.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a public servant and American patriot, Blake Butler, who passed away suddenly on May 3, 2019 at his home in Yerevan, Armenia. Today I ask that the U.S. House of Representatives join me to honor and remember the life of Blake Edward Butler. Blake Butler joined the U.S. Department of State in 2009 as a U.S. Foreign Service Officer. In 2018, he began his tour as the Human Resources and Financial Management Officer at U.S. Embassy Yerevan. From 2015 to 2018 he served as the Assistant General Services Officer at U.S. Embassy Buenos Aires where he led the team that provided logistical support to 14 different U.S. government agencies and close to 400 employees. Blake's other assignments included General Services Officer at U.S. Embassy Baghdad; Environmental, Science, Technology and Health Officer at U.S. Embassy Paris; and Vice Consul at U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince. Prior to joining the Foreign Service, he worked as a civil service employee for the Department of State as a budget analyst and in the office responsible for the President's foreign travel. He was the recipient of multiple Department Superior Honor and Meritorious Honor Awards. In addition to his service with the Department of State, Blake valiantly served in the U.S. Army's Reserve from 2001 to 2011 and was deployed overseas on multiple occasions. Blake was the loving husband of Sara Hurst Butler, who previously worked in my office, and the proud father of Everett Ian Butler. Blake received his BA from Baylor University and his MBA and Master's in Health Administration from Texas Woman's University. As we look at the incredibly rich history of our country we realize that this history is comprised of men, just like Blake, who chose a life of public service. I am grateful for Blake's service to our country and my thoughts, prayers and deepest condolences goes out Blake's wife, son, parents and brother. There are no words that can relieve their pain and what words I offer only begin to convey my deep respect and highest appreciation. I hope they know that the goodness Blake brought to this world will always be remembered.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2030, the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act. The Colorado River is a critical source of water for approximately 19 million people in the southern California region. After 19 years of drought on the Colorado, Lake Mead is near critical levels. If no action is taken, it is estimated that by 2021, Lake Mead could reach critically low elevations where basic reservoir operations and water deliveries become impossible. We are here today because of the tremendous leadership of the seven Colorado River Basin States, the water users throughout the basin. Traditionally, the shared water resources of the Colorado River have been managed through consensus and collaboration, and the drought contingency plan, or DCP, is no exception. Water users throughout the basin agree to voluntary conservation measures that protect existing water rights in order to protect the water supplies of Lake Powell and Lake Mead for the foreseeable future. I want to commend the bill's sponsor for working to ensure that the Salton Sea is protected under this legislation. DCP was developed with input from stakeholders throughout the basin, including water users, Tribal leaders, and environmental groups. California holds the senior water rights in the lower basin. In the short term, though, California may have the most water security during this historic drought, but water leaders in my region recognize the importance of protecting Lake Mead now to preserve southern California's long-term water supply reliability. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend a special thanks to Jeff Kightlinger for his tireless efforts on behalf of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to get this historic deal across the finish line. If not for his work over the last several years, we would not be here today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to my good friend Ronald ``Ron'' Roberts, who passed away in San Diego, California on Monday, February 4, 2019. Ron was a dedicated public servant and he will be deeply missed. Throughout his life, Ron worked to improve the community around him. In the first phase of his public service, Ron worked as a California Highway Patrol officer. By the time he retired, Ron had risen to the rank of sergeant. After his career in law enforcement, Ron began what would eventually be a twenty-four-year dedication to the city of Temecula. Ron was first appointed to the Temecula Traffic Commission in 1990, the year after the city incorporated. In 1992, Ron was elected to the Temecula City Council, where he would ultimately serve five consecutive terms, from 1992 to 2014, including five terms as the city's mayor. The impact of Ron's leadership and hard work is on display today throughout Temecula, particularly in its infrastructure, facilities, parks and libraries. In fact, the city honored Ron by naming its busiest library the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. Ron was also rightfully proud of his work granting public use of the Duck Pond at the corner of Ynez and Rancho California roads and revitalizing Old Town Temecula. Extraordinary cities like Temecula don't exist by accident--they come to fruition thanks to the vision and activism of tireless advocates like Ron Roberts. Ron is survived by his wife, Jeanne; son Ron, Jr. (wife Kara); daughter Wendy (husband Sam); and five grandchildren. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Roberts family, his friends, and everyone fortunate enough to know Ron. Although Ron may be gone, the many contributions he made to his country, community and family will have a lasting impact.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, today I wish to recognize Command Chief Master Sergeant Ericka E. Kelly, upon her retirement after 32 years of distinguished military service to our great Nation in the United States Air Force and Air Force Reserve. Chief Kelly's career culminated with her final assignment as both the Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chief of the Air Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C., and Command Chief of the Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. Chief Kelly represents the highest enlisted executive level of leadership in Air Force Reserve Command and advises the commander on all issues regarding the readiness, training, welfare, morale, proper utilization and progress of more than 55,000 enlisted Citizen Airmen. She also provides direction to the Reserve force and represents their interests at all levels of government to other military branches and in joint strategic and operational war-fighting environments. Chief Master Sergeant Kelly came from exceptionally humble beginnings in Guatemala and overcame extreme adversity to achieve her American dream. Immigrating to the United States at the age of 12, she had to work full-time to help support her family before finishing high school at night to earn her diploma. Knowing from a young age she wanted to serve in our nation's military, her dogged determination is the epitome of personal resilience. Chief Kelly's career began in the medical field as a medical services specialist. Recognizing her talents, the Air Force challenged her through increased responsibilities and she continued to grow and excel as an aeromedical evacuation crew member with over 1,400 flight hours on various airframes. Chief Kelly has deployed numerous times in support of contingency operations around the world including Restore Hope and Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. In addition to her military service, Chief Kelly has more than 20 years of government, management and law enforcement experience. She has served as a field agent and criminal investigator for the Department of Justice in numerous agencies including the Office of Professional Responsibility. She is also a John Maxwell certified speaker, coach and trainer. Throughout her tenure, Chief Kelly has been instrumental in advocating for Reservists across the globe and strengthening the total force team. She has ensured Air Force Reserve interests and total force solutions were highlighted and incorporated into decisions made at the highest levels of the Air Force guaranteeing Air Force Reserve Airmen were ready to answer our nation's call. Due to Chief Master Sergeant Ericka Kelly's visionary leadership, foresight and ceaseless efforts, the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and the Nation will long reap the benefits of her many years of service. It is experienced, dedicated, professional Citizen Airmen like Chief Master Sergeant Kelly who make the Department of Defense and the Air Force Reserve the outstanding institutions that they are today. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress and a grateful Nation, I extend our deepest appreciation to Chief Master Sergeant Ericka E. Kelly for her many years of dedicated service. There is no question the Air Force, Department of Defense, and the United States benefited greatly from Chief Kelly's visionary leadership, planning and foresight, and we wish her the very best.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my friend.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the former chairman of the committee.