Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the bill before us, paying particular attention to the work of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

I first want to thank my colleagues, Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey, for their leadership; and Ranking Member Ryan, who has been a gentleman and a scholar, for working with me to develop this product, a great example of how representatives from opposite sides of the line can work together and create a model bipartisanship to build great legislation for the American people.

Our total recommendation for the fiscal year 2018 Legislative Branch is $3.58 billion. In this bill, we focused on Capitol improvements, better security, more transparency and accountability all in a fiscally responsible manner.

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, the House continues to lead by example in its frugal operations. With this bill, we will be spending 12 percent below the 2010 levels, showing the American people fiscal discipline starts here in our House operations first.

We also continue the policy of denying pay increases to Members of Congress for the eighth fiscal year in a row. This Republican Congress has tightened its belt since taking the majority, and we have never allowed a pay increase for Members of Congress, and we aren't allowing one today, saving taxpayers over $68 million since 2011.

In light of the recent shooting where Republican Members of Congress were targeted for their beliefs and our colleague and majority whip, Steve Scalise, was seriously wounded, this bill takes new focus on the security related to Congress, and I would like to recognize the United States Capitol Police Special Agents Crystal Griner and David Bailey.

As we all know in this body, the U.S. Capitol Police protect us, our staff, and the more than 9 million visitors we get here each year with bravery, putting their lives on the line each and every day to keep us safe.

Special Agents Griner and Bailey put that heroism on display for the country and the world when they saved numerous Members of Congress from an

attack at practice where some 25 of our colleagues were preparing for the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. Their courage under fire saved the lives of countless Members of Congress, staff, and innocent bystanders, and both of them were wounded while carrying out their duties.

Steve Scalise, Matt Mika, and Zack Barth, who were also injured that day, and everyone else on that baseball field, are alive today because of those Capitol Police officers, and we continue to wish a speedy recovery to everyone who has been injured.

We, as a Congress, owe it to the Capitol Police to ensure they have the necessary resources to meet their mission in an increasingly polarized climate. And after working with Mr. Ryan, we believe we have appropriately prioritized those needs, taking a comprehensive approach to ensuring the safety and security of not only Members of Congress, but our staff, visitors, and the constituents we serve.

We provide resources and make structural changes that will address security concerns both here at the Capitol and in our home districts, including $29 million in new resources to the Capitol Police for increased security, $5 million to the House Sergeant at Arms for district office security, and support for House Administration's authorization to increase $25,000 per MRA account to address Members' physical security when they are away from the Capitol complex. We also invest new resources in cybersecurity measures to protect attacks on our digital information.

After more than 20 hearings, briefings, and tours of various portions of the Capitol complex since January, we have included $581 million in total for the Architect of the Capitol. We recognize the continuing challenge of preserving and maintaining our infrastructure and prioritizing critical projects in the current fiscal climate.

We have included funding to restore and renovate House office buildings, upgrade the Capitol Power Plant, and several other projects. We fund a Revitalization Fund to finance major repairs and renovations to facilities in the House for future years, and we are planning ahead to try and save costs.

Overall, we provided $648 million for the Library of Congress, with new funding going to IT improvements library-wide, as well as specific copyright modernization initiatives.

In total, we provided $48.5 million for the CBO. Members of this body on both sides of the aisle have their differences in opinion with CBO estimates and how it arrives at those conclusions. In some cases, frankly, the CBO is wrong, but, at the end of the day, it serves an important purpose and needs the appropriate resources to do its job.

We also increased funding for the Government Accountability Office to ensure that they root out fraud, waste, and abuse in government.

Mr. Chair, in crafting this project, Ranking Member Ryan and I sought the thoughtful feedback of Members throughout this committee and this body. There are various initiatives we can all be proud of, initiatives that serve our constituents and produce efficiencies and transparency in the way that Congress operates, including increasing openness and transparency and producing efficiencies by publishing nonconfidential CRS reports online, expanding the Wounded Warrior Project, which helps Members hire veterans. We increased total slots by more than 57 percent.

In conclusion, in all, this bill represents a frugal approach at funding the basic operations of Congress. We do so in a fiscally responsible manner, keeping House budgets historically low and prohibiting pay increases in Congress. We are improving transparency and accountability at the same time.

I would like to thank Ranking Member Ryan and his staff, Anne Sokolov and Adam Berg, as well as my staff, Tim Monahan, Liz Dawson, Jenny Panone, and Joe Eannello, and to all the members of the subcommittee for their work and participation in the process this year.

Mr. Chair, I urge this body support this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his amendment to add $1 million to the already $545 million that we spend on the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO plays an important role in being a government watchdog. They are the sort of watchdog of what happens in this city. And we are all certainly concerned, whether it is a Democrat or Republican President, that we want a GAO that can do its work and to root out fraud, waste, and abuse, provide economic data for Congress, help us to do our job in holding our government accountable, and help the American people hold our government accountable.

That is why we work on this bill, to keep funding steady for the GAO and to help centralize IG reports to make them ultimately public and online to increase transparency. But we have tight constraints on our budget.

Even so, while we work to fund additional security needs, critical infrastructure projects that need to be funded, and much-needed cybersecurity improvements, reducing the amount of money that goes to MRAs from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would weaken our ability to represent our constituents, weaken our ability to effectively communicate with our constituents. I don't think that is the gentleman's intent here, but that would be the ultimate result.

We actually have a slight increase in what the GAO can spend in our budget, getting up to $545 million. So there is a slight increase here, and that is at a time in which many budgets are being decreased across Congress. Many of our constituents are tightening their belts and learning how to do more with less in the challenges they face putting food on the table for their families and really working in a family budget. We have to do the same thing here in Congress, Mr. Chairman.

The GAO actually gets slightly more money this year, and they have the ability to continue to carry out their function at $545 million. And I don't believe going to $546 million is going to achieve the significant changes that maybe Mr. Connolly would like to see.

Ultimately, we are not able to accommodate this request, Mr. Chairman. Our Member budgets are already 12 percent below what they were when the Republicans took over the House in 2010.

We are 12 percent below, even with this expenditure, and many Members are concerned that they don't have the resources to provide what they need to for their constituents. So cutting these budgets by $1 million more would only exacerbate those problems.

Mr. Chairman, we would have to oppose this amendment. We want the GAO to remain strong, and that is why we slightly increased their funding, but we can't really rob the MRA budgets to add to that with the many challenges we have and many priorities in this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mrs. Love for her eloquence and leadership on this issue. She has provided a very serious proposal at a time in which, in light of the recent tragedy at a baseball park here in the suburbs of Virginia and what we have seen across the country, there are threats made daily against Members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican. In fact, threats are up this year over what they were all of last year combined.

We know many of these threats are simply just hot air or anger being expressed in an overly vitriolic way. We have all seen it on social media, on Twitter, on Facebook pages, things that are just really shocking and lack the discourse and the civility that we need to solve problems in this country. But it reaches a different level when Members of Congress are put in threatening situations where they or their families legitimately believe that someone may try to harm them. So we must ensure that we do everything we can to protect this institution, that we protect this government, that we protect democracy.

The idea that anyone in this body could be targeted based on their political beliefs, like my friend and our colleague, our majority whip, Steve Scalise, was when he was shot at a baseball practice by somebody who was specifically targeting Republicans for their beliefs, that is sort of new in the world of the shootings that we have seen around the country, that someone would be specifically targeted for their beliefs.

It happened to Republicans now; it could happen to Democrats the next time. So I think we stand unified as a Congress that we must improve the security in order to protect democracy.

We signed up for this, of course, and as my colleague, Mr. Richmond, said, our families didn't. Home security relates to our children, our families, making sure there are cameras or whatever improvements need to be made so that people know that, if someone were to try to attack them at their home, they would be protected.

In this bill, we have addressed security here in Washington, D.C. We have addressed security at our district offices at home. We have even allowed personal security. But what we haven't done is allowed some support for home security.

We have seen, in recent weeks, that the FEC has said you can spend campaign dollars for this, and I think it is a reasonable request that Mrs. Love is making, that others are standing up for, to allow the MRA to be utilized for that.

So I think what the gentlewoman is raising will help with peace of mind. It will help stem real attacks, is limited in its scope, and ultimately protects democracy. Members of Congress should not be intimidated or injured or worse because of what they believe in.

I ask the body to support this legislation, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Kildee for his leadership in bringing this to this body's attention.

I think the work of our men and women in service defending our Nation is the highest priority for this Congress, and our support for them in services, in healthcare, in helping them find work, in education, in training, all the things they need when they come home, I think we are unified in our support that they should be recognized as the heroes they are when they come back and leave service.

Some of these men and women, in putting themselves in the field of battle have become wounded, and sometimes very severely. They have stood in the field of battle. They have stood up to our enemies. They have protected freedom around the globe and here at home, keeping us and our allies, our children, our families safe, keeping freedom and democracy safe; yet, when they come home, all too often, they don't have everything they need. All too often, they don't feel that the promises this government has made have been kept. So each and every day I think we are working on legislation to improve that.

We have passed bills in recent weeks here to continue and improve veterans' programs, but the House Wounded Warrior Program is a great example of how this Congress is leading by example by creating 2-year fellowships for disabled veterans.

The unemployment rate is higher for these men and women than it is for nonveterans, and disabled veterans in particular, and so this fellowship program provides a valuable job, a valuable experience, an opportunity for these men and women to help serve their country, which is in their DNA. It is who they are.

When they are done serving on the battlefield, they can come serve in our congressional offices, and it provides a great service for us. They provide the opportunity for us to have an expert on not only veterans' issues and military issues, but many issues. They can cover a whole range of things, providing better services for us and our constituents.

In our legislation, the underlying bill, we increased the total number of fellowships to 85 from 54 because there is a waiting list. This is a 57 percent increase over the previous number. And 79 Member offices are on the waiting list right now to participate in this program, so the demand is there.

We certainly know that there are many veterans who would love to serve in this capacity, and so we are excited to support this amendment putting more resources into this program, and we are going to work with the gentleman from Michigan to make sure that we can open up slots in a timely manner to help make sure we get these men and women into the offices so they can serve.

Mr. Chairman, we support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island.

I, too, support the gentleman's efforts here, and, as a supporter of the BABIES Act, last year, H.R. 5147, I am happy to report, because of the language we included with the Architect of the Capitol last year, they presented a plan, which they are going to move forward with, which will install additional baby changing stations around campus, 54 of which will be going into House Office Buildings.

And as a father of two little girls, I have used these changing tables myself in restrooms from time to time, as Mr. Ryan has. I know he has got a young son. And so we know how important these are and how families, when they need to make a change, they need to make a change. They need to have a space to do that.

So we need to be family friendly here in the U.S. Capitol and in our House Office Buildings, and so I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue. It deserves attention. I will be happy to continue to work with the gentleman, as well as the Architect of the Capitol, to ensure that adequate number of changing stations are installed around the Capitol complex for families, for the 9 million visitors that come to this Capitol every year, that many of those have families with young children, that they are able to, as well as the Members of Congress like Mr. Ryan and ourselves and many others who have young children, use these changing stations as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend and colleague and co-chair of the Deaf Caucus, Mr. Takano from California, for bringing this amendment, and unfortunately, I cannot support it, Mr. Chairman, and we would ask that the body reject it.

You know, Congress terminated funding for the Office of Technology Assessment in 1995, so some 22 years ago, but it is back from the dead to be here on the floor today to be reestablished.

At one point, funding totaled over $20 million for the Office of Technology Assessment, but Congress did one of the things it has attempted to do in many areas, which is try to consolidate government, make government more efficient, make it do more with less, and so they transferred the functions from the Office of Technology Assessment over to the GAO.

We have heard debate on this floor within the last hour about the value of the GAO and the great work they do and how the GAO is a trustworthy organization and how it is important that we continue to fund them, yet, in this instance, they want to take these responsibilities away from the GAO.

In fact, in fiscal year 2008, a permanent technology assessment function within the GAO was established by a recommendation from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. They allocate at least $2.5 million per year to technology assessment, and they have established the capability to produce technology assessments in many areas.

They have hired scientists, engineers, and other technical specialists to respond to congressional requests. They produce three to four technology assessment reports each year. The GAO uses its technical staff to support other reports for Congress that have technology implications, such as privacy and vulnerability of computer components in cars.

The GAO receives three to four requests per year specifically for technology assessments, and many others have a technology as an aspect.

They have been able to testify on these topics recently on the Zika virus and on transfer of technologies developed with Federal research funds to the marketplace. They provide thorough and balanced analysis of critical technological innovations that affect our society, the environment, and the economy.

And so creating another Federal agency that is going to require additional resources and to have it offset from investment in capital projects, to me, is the wrong direction. I think, in current law, we have more than enough resources heading in this direction. Taxpayers are counting on us to find ways to spend less money, to keep programs efficient, and so the idea that we create a new agency that has been gone for 20 years today and fund it for millions of dollars, to me, is inconsistent with the values we all, I think, espouse about making government more efficient, more effective.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire's amendment on postcard sizes, primarily because this issue has yet to go through any sort of process. We don't have information on the floor to know how this would affect Member offices. It has not gone through the Franking Commission or come before our committee, so I don't think it is ready for consideration and debate.

Franked mailings of standard postcard size currently only account for roughly 10 percent of the total franked mailings that Members send. This amendment would prohibit Members from sending mass mailings on their own letterhead. They wouldn't be able to send printed newsletters, fliers, letters, or regular or large postcards, among others.

I think it would really have a dramatic impact on the ability of Members of Congress to communicate with their constituents. They wouldn't be able to send them a letter or they wouldn't be able to send them a newsletter.

I certainly am about saving money and about making government more efficient, but this idea, I think, is not ready for prime time. I appreciate my colleague from New Hampshire bringing it forward, but I can't support it at this point, and I would oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) for continuing the tradition that he and others, particularly in Oklahoma, for some reason, have focused on cutting out government waste, finding sometimes small things, sometimes big things, and all things in between that we can reduce, cut, or eliminate that saves taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chair, $1 million is big money in States like Kansas and Oklahoma and across the country. It is real dollars to the people who get up and pay their taxes to this country. There are too many million-dollar expenditures that happen in this government that are overlooked and unnecessary because they are not maybe big enough for folks here to take time to pay attention to.

What Mr. Russell is doing today is standing up for fiscal responsibility, for efficiency of government, and for helping the environment. This is wasted printed paper that is unnecessary. I think it is a good government measure that will help modernize and make our government more efficient and effective.

It is consistent with what this House has already done when it passed H.R. 195 earlier, which bars the distribution of the Federal Register to congressional offices and Federal agencies. That is in the Senate being marked up, maybe even today.

This is a smart amendment. It is the kind of thing that we need to keep doing more of to save money for taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Russell for his work, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time and for her hard work during this arduous process. And I would also like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Chairman Dent for their hard work as well.

As we all know, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies bill has a strong reputation for common ground and bipartisanship. Chairman Dent, like always, set a cooperative tone and was inclusive throughout this process. He has worked tirelessly to address many Members' concerns, and I joined him in that effort, as well as critical issues impacting our veterans and Active and Reserve servicemembers.

The Military Construction portion of this minibus provides adequate funding for both the Active and Reserve components. In addition, the bill funds the NATO Security Investment Program at the FY17 level, sending a strong message to our Nation's allies that we stand with them as we continue to face evolving international threats.

For the Department of Veterans Affairs, this bill provides $3.9 billion, which is a 5.3 percent increase over FY 2017.

I am also pleased that this bill will address the issue of breast cancer awareness and prevention and provides almost $700 million for medical research, which will fund essential efforts, such as those to address TBI and PTSD, develop state-of-the-art prosthetics, care for victims of military sexual trauma, and treat veterans suffering from mental illness.

The bill also continues to fund important programs to combat veteran homelessness, provide our vets with effective and timely healthcare, and improve the veteran benefits application process and appeals process.

I am also extremely grateful for Chairman Dent's support for in vitro fertilization and coverage for assisted reproductive technologies for veterans who have sustained a service-connected injury that impacts their fertility. This issue is very important to me and to so many servicemembers. All veterans deserve to be able to start families. Moreover, providing access to IVF is consistent with the VA's goals to support veterans and improve their quality of life.

On a personal note, this bill will also address the issue of breast cancer awareness and prevention.

This past spring, our subcommittee visited the Washington VA Medical Center. We learned that the VA was relying on the controversial USPSTF guidance for mammography in making coverage decisions.

Last Congress, we passed a law that barred private insurers from making coverage decisions based on these guidelines through 2018. However, the moratorium did not apply, we learned in that visit to the VA, and so women in their forties who were veterans could be denied coverage for mammograms. To its credit, the VA changed its guideline regarding screening, and with Chairman Dent's support, language is included to hold the VA to this better standard.

As I stated during my testimony before the Rules Committee, Mr. Chairman, it is my sincere belief that if the MILCON-VA bill were being considered as a stand-alone, as is tradition, under an open rule, it would receive strong bipartisan support. But, unfortunately, that is not what we are doing here today.

Instead of following regular order, we, instead, are taking up four bills at once and adding funds to begin construction on President Trump's irresponsible border wall that he promised Mexico would pay for, and now taxpayers are being stuck with the bill. This fiscally and morally irresponsible expenditure leaves the nondefense appropriations bills grossly underfunded.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, this bill isn't even great for defense. All this talk about making sure that we provide adequate resources for our defense and our national security ignores the fact that the Budget Control Act provides additional funds that would ultimately be sequestered without a cap adjustment. This minibus would breach this cap by more than $72 billion, resulting in a mandatory 13.2 percent sequester of all defense accounts, including the Military Construction title.

And, by the way, I have said this repeatedly each time I have spoken on this legislation, and never once has anyone in the majority countered what I am suggesting. That is deeply troubling.

So even if this bill is signed into law, which it will not be, DOD would not receive one dollar of this increase.

Secretary Mattis testified ``sequestration and the continued use of continuing resolutions would result in a steady erosion of military readiness.'' That is the only outcome this bill guarantees. By taking up this minibus today, we are setting ourselves up for failure, and we have set ourselves up

for an early fall with no real progress to be made on the FY 2018 appropriations bills.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to govern in this fashion. I believe it is time that we stop listening to the most extreme voices and get past these unrealistic beliefs that we can cut our way to prosperity. We cannot. If this failed philosophy persists, our work will only get more difficult.

It is clear that passing any appropriations bill that will be signed into law will require a bipartisan majority of both Houses. As a result of this irresponsible posture, I will sadly be voting against the minibus, and I look forward to working towards an appropriations product that both parties can work on together in true bipartisan tradition.

Mr. Chairman, lastly, before I close, I thank our staff in the MILCON-VA bill on both the majority and the minority side: Maureen Holohan, Sarah Young, Sue Quantius, Sean Snyder, and Tracey Russell with the majority; and Matt Washington, Rosalyn Kumar, and Jonathan Steinberg with the minority.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment and support the en bloc amendments. I appreciate the chairman's inclusion of amendments from Democratic Members.

The amendments included range from therapy grants to combating opioid abuse. These amendments will deliver better care to our veterans.

The minority has no objection to this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), who has been a passionate advocate to improve services to his rural communities.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, President Trump, the ``Commander in Tweet,'' tweeted this morning announcing a ban on transgender military service, which was a completely baseless and hateful assault on transgender Americans. Make no mistake: this was not just a midnight tweet. This was a statement of this administration's discriminatory policies and a step backwards for our Nation.

While the President tweeted that his decision came after consulting, supposedly, with our Nation's top generals, that was apparently news to them, as it was met with utter surprise and silence from Pentagon leaders.

Additionally, the President may want to speak to his VA Secretary, as the VA has unequivocally stated VA's policy has not changed. The VA provides care, benefits, and other VA services to all veterans, including transgender veterans.

The President's policy reversal comes after our military has undertaken a measured and thoughtful process to make our military open to LGBT Americans to serve their Nation with pride and patriotism. This thoughtful process included the successful repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which had the support of civilian and military defense leaders and an overwhelming number of Americans.

Unlike the President's tweets, the decision to make our military more open was not made rashly or with the intention to discriminate.

With over 6,000 transgender Americans serving on Active Duty, in the National Guard, and in our Reserve forces, it would be reckless, dangerous, and cruel to remove brave servicemembers from their critical roles protecting the American people. It is reckless and dangerous to immediately leave vacant positions that are so vital to our national security.

It would be cruel to perniciously discharge these servicemembers less than honorably, an act that could gravely impact whether they are eligible for VA benefits.

Time and again, we see the dramatic and unintended consequences of this President's thoughtless actions.

As we fight for an open military, we will also fight to provide the proper care and resources to the over 130,000 transgender veterans that fought to defend this Nation.

Additionally, whatever my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, this decision was not based on a financial cost-benefit analysis.

Allowing transgender people to serve in the military would raise defense health spending by less than 0.1 percent annually, including funds for gender reassignment surgeries. That is just $2.4 million to $8.4 million.

In comparison, just so we are illustrative, the Pentagon spends $84.24 million annually on erectile dysfunction prescriptions. Of that, $41.6 million was specifically spent on Viagra.

Moreover, research has shown that greater inclusion has little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness. In fact, commanders have noted that these policies benefited all servicemembers by creating a more inclusive and diverse force.

Mr. Chairman, several things are clear:

This was not a decision based on fiscal responsibility.

This was not a decision based on military readiness.

This decision was apparently made to save the President's immoral, irresponsible border wall, because some Republican Members threatened to bring down the entire minibus appropriations bill that we are debating here today over transgender medical treatment in the military.

This decision, at the end of the day, was based purely on bigotry and hate, and it is one that we will vehemently oppose.

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

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Ratcliffe

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

Mr. Chairman, I, like many Members, have concerns regarding another round of BRAC. I realize that this is a complicated issue for all Members of Congress, especially those with military facilities in their congressional districts.

I have had this conversation with my chairman, Mr. Dent, several times. And while we both share the concerns of those Members with military bases in their district and other military facilities, the gentleman is right. We are going to need to address that we have facilities all across the country that really need to be evaluated because they are, essentially, maintaining infrastructure that is no longer needed.

For example, the estimate of excess capacity for the Army is 22 percent. The Air Force's estimate of excess capacity is roughly 30 percent. Both the Army and the Air Force are strong supporters of another BRAC round.

While this amendment really has no effect because we don't actually have any funding in this bill for another BRAC round, it does send the message that Congress is unwilling to tackle what is arguably a tough issue.

This amendment would be, essentially, an abdication of our duties as Members of this House to ensure that taxpayer resources are being used in a wise and fiscally responsible way, and

that is something that we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle regularly.

And given that we have a very significant increase in the defense appropriations bill, when we have resources that we are expending or, essentially, wasting by not having a BRAC round, then we are, essentially, leaving that money on the table when we could provide it for our national defense.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And I recognize that the chairman is willing to accept it, but we should underscore that there are no funds in this bill for a round of BRAC, so, essentially, the acceptance of this amendment adopts the same posture that this bill already holds.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would increase funding for the Government Accountability Office, offset by a minor decrease in the funding for the MRA accounts here in the House of Representatives.

I am offering the amendment for three reasons:

First, the bill significantly underfunds the GAO.

Second, the administration is actively thwarting congressional oversight, which we need more of, not less of.

Finally, Congress, which struck an aggressive posture in oversight during the previous administration, seems to have lost its way a bit in its constitutional duty to oversee the activities of this executive branch.

The GAO is a vital resource not only for congressional overseers, but also anyone interested in studying or improving the effectiveness of Federal agencies. The GAO is often referred to as the congressional watchdog. I am sure every Member of Congress has supported or requested a GAO report with the purpose of examining broad and discrete issues of executive branch oversight at some point in their career. It is a vital institution that saves taxpayer dollars.

Every dollar we invest in the GAO, Mr. Chairman, generates a $112 return for the Federal Government and for the taxpayer. This oversight dividend amounted to $63 billion in financial benefits for the Federal Government in fiscal year 2016 alone.

Unfortunately, the bill before us provides $46.2 million less than the budget request for fiscal year 2018. This amendment would simply restore a modest $1 million of it.

I know the lack of sufficient funding for the GAO has been a topic of discussion and debate between the majority and minority on the Appropriations Committee. I would note that the ranking member raised the issue in the ``Additional Views'' section of the committee report.

In the report, Ranking Member Lowey and Representative Tim Ryan, who is with us on the floor, stated it is irresponsible to underfund the GAO, especially when administration officials have reportedly been ordered not to comply with Democratic oversight requests.

Which brings me to my second reason for offering the amendment: the indifferent and at times outright adversarial approach the Trump administration has decided to take to normal routine congressional oversight work. The administration has ignored the seven-member rule, for example, an authority enacted into law in 1928, which delegates authority to any seven members of my committee, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to require any executive branch agency to submit any information requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of our committee.

The Trump administration released an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, arguing that agencies and departments could ignore requests for documents and other information from Members of the minority party.

On June 7, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who certainly knew the benefit of getting information requests in the minority answered, wrote a scathing letter to President Trump urging him to reject the opinion. The opinion stated that only requests from committees or their chairs are constitutionally authorized. Senator Grassley, Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, called the opinion nonsense.

In his letter to the President, he stated: ``For OLC to fundamentally misunderstand and misstate such a simple fact exposes its shocking lack of professionalism and objectivity.''

He also wrote: ``Oversight brings transparency, and transparency brings accountability. And the opposite is true. Shutting down oversight requests doesn't drain the swamp.''

Those are the words of Chuck Grassley.

As the vice ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I have witnessed firsthand the committee's volte-face on issues of oversight.

Whereas, during the Obama administration, one would have thought that, like the British Empire, the Sun never set on the jurisdiction of our committee. Now, suddenly, the majority advances a tortured and narrow interpretation of the committee's role as the primary oversight body for the House of Representatives.

If the administration is going to ignore the minority in Congress and the majority is suddenly allergic to congressional oversight, the demands on the GAO are going to grow.

With that greater responsibility should come greater resources. First and foremost, the House should join Senator Grassley and demand that this administration not impede congressional oversight activities.

In the absence of the administration acceding to this request, we have got to send a clear message about the importance to the executive branch of accountability by better funding the GAO.

This amendment will not solve the GAO funding created by this bill, but it would send a message to our colleagues in the Senate about the premium we place on the principle of robust oversight of the executive branch.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment which would increase funding for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and offset that increase with a reduction in funding for the salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives.

I am offering this amendment for three reasons.

First, this bill significantly underfunds GAO.

Second, this administration is actively thwarting congressional oversight.

And finally, Congress, which struck an aggressive posture on oversight during the Obama Administration, seems to have forgotten its Constitutional duty to oversee the activities of the Executive Branch.

GAO is a vital resource for not only Congressional overseers, but also anyone interested in studying or improving the effectiveness of federal agencies and the way in which they carry out their vital missions.

GAO is often referred to as the ``congressional watchdog.''

I am sure nearly every Member of Congress has supported or requested a GAO report with the purpose of examining broad and discrete issues of Executive Branch oversight.

It is a vital institution that helps ensure taxpayer dollars are invested wisely.

Every dollar we invest in GAO generates a $112 return for the federal government. This oversight dividend amounted to $63 billion in financial benefits for the federal government in fiscal year 2016.

Unfortunately, the bill before us provides $46.2 million less than the budget request for FY 2018, which would result in the loss of 200 GAO staff by the end of the coming fiscal year.

I know the lack of sufficient funding for GAO has been a topic of discussion and debate between the Majority and the Minority on the Appropriations Committee.

I would note that the Ranking Member raised this issue in the ``Additional Views'' section of the Committee report for the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill.

In the report, Ranking Member Lowey and Representative Tim Ryan stated, ``It is irresponsible to underfund the GAO, especially when Administration officials have reportedly been ordered not to comply with Democratic oversight requests.''

Which brings me to my second reason for offering this amendment--the indifferent and, at times, hostile approach the Trump Administration has decided to take to Congressional oversight work.

The administration has ignored the Seven Member Rule, an authority that was enacted into law in 1928 which delegates authority to any seven members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to require any Executive Branch agency to ``submit any information requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.''

The Trump Administration released an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel on May 1, 2017, arguing that agencies and departments could ignore requests for documents and other information from Members of Congress other than Republican Committee Chairmen.

On June 7, 2017, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley wrote a scathing letter to President Trump urging him to reject the opinion issued by Office of Legal Counsel.

The opinion stated that only requests from committees or their chairs are ``constitutionally authorized.''

Senator Grassley called the opinion ``nonsense.''

In his letter to the president he stated, ``For OLC to so fundamentally misunderstand and misstate such a simple fact exposes its shocking lack of professionalism and objectivity. Indeed, OLC appears to have utterly failed to live up to its own standards. You are being ill-served and ill-advised.''

He also wrote, ``Oversight brings transparency, and transparency brings accountability. And, the opposite is true. Shutting down oversight requests doesn't drain the swamp, Mr. President. It floods the swamp.''

And Congress is not blameless here.

As the Vice Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I have witnessed firsthand that Committee's volte- face on issues of oversight.

Whereas, during the Obama Administration one would have thought that like the British Empire the sun never set on the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee, now the Majority advances a tortured and narrow interpretation of the Committee's role as the primary oversight body for the House of Representatives.

If the Administration is going to ignore the Minority in Congress, and the Majority is suddenly allergic to Congressional oversight, the demands on GAO are only going to grow.

And with that greater responsibility should come greater resources.

First and foremost, the House should join Senator Grassley and demand that this administration not impede Congressional oversight activities.

In the absence of the administration acceding to this demand, we must send a clear message about the importance of Executive Branch accountability by better funding GAO.

This amendment will not solve the GAO funding difficulties created by this bill, but it would send a message to our colleagues in the Senate about the premium we place on the principle of robust oversight of the Executive Branch.

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

Mr. Chair, I have great respect for gentlemen who offered this amendment.

They are my colleagues, and they are my friends.

Mr. Meadows and I work very closely together on the Government Operations Subcommittee. He is my Chairman, and he knows I value his collaboration.

Mr. Griffith is a fellow Virginian, and I have the pleasure of serving on committees with Mr. Jordan (OGR) and Mr. Perry (HFAC).

And that is why it especially pains me to say this.

But this amendment, which uses the disgraceful Holman Rule to eviscerate the Congressional Budget Office's Budget Analysis Division, is so transparent and so cynical it makes me want to weep.

This amendment would punish the Congressional Budget Office for exposing the House Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act as a cruel bill that would deprive 23 million Americans of healthcare.

CBO is being retaliated against for the earnest work it conducted on the Trump Budget,

which demonstrated that the president's budget misrepresents deficit projections by $2.3 trillion.

This amendment says facts don't matter anymore.

And that is something to mourn.

Mr. Chairman, while I rise to oppose this appropriations package, even though the Legislative Branch division of this package is worthy of our support, I commend Chairman Yoder both for the product and for the way he reached across the aisle to work with me and other members of our committee and the minority in this process.

For all of their hard work, I would also like to thank Liz Dawson, who is on their team; Jenny Panone and Tim Monahan from the Legislative Branch minority staff; Joe Eannello from Chairman Yoder's office; Adam Berg on the minority staff; and Anne Sokolov and Ryan Keating on my team.

This year's Legislative Branch appropriations bill would, among other things, allow us to catch up on some deferred maintenance in our buildings; invest in information technology to modernize the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, and Copyright Office; and adjust to the new cybersecurity environment faced here in the United States Congress.

I am also pleased to see that this bill provides additional funds for the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police to increase congressional security in the wake of the tragic shooting at our congressional baseball practice several months back.

Our goal is to give them the resources they need to maintain the security on the Capitol campus and increase their coverage of Members and

gatherings of Members that might be targeted. It is the responsibility of the House to look out for our safety and the safety of our constituents and staff, and the funding included in this bill is a step in the right direction.

There are things I hope we can improve on as the bill moves forward. For example, I would like to see more money for personnel at the Library and CRS, not just for information technology; and more for the Government Accountability Office, which is flat-funded in this budget. Because of inflation, GAO will have 200 fewer employees than expected at the end of the year.

GAO's audits and investigations root out waste, fraud, and abuse in government, something that we all agree upon here should be done. With the Trump administration resisting all of this oversight, GAO is more important today than it ever has been.

While I would support the Legislative Branch bill if it came to the floor on its own, unfortunately, we are not considering it on its own.

I oppose tying $1.6 billion of wasted taxpayer money for President Trump's border wall to the Legislative Branch bill. We need bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform, which would include smarter, more effective enforcement of our laws.

A few years ago, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said immigration reform would reduce our deficit by $900 billion and increase real GDP growth by over 3 percent. But simply building a ridiculous wall that faces opposition from both Democrats and Republicans won't do anything for our economy, and it isn't even a cost-effective way to strengthen enforcement.

Besides, we were told repeatedly over the course of the last 18 months that Mexico would pay for the wall. They would ask the President: Who is going to pay for the wall? Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

Why is there a single dime of American taxpayer money for a border wall that President Trump promised Mexico would finance?

I oppose the Republicans' partisan budget strategy. By refusing to work with Democrats on a bipartisan budget deal that raises the Budget Control Act caps, Republicans are seriously risking some combination of sequestration, stopgap funding bills, government shutdown, and a catastrophic default on our national debt.

Nondefense discretionary spending is one-sixth of the Federal budget. Having already cut it to the bone, they are now sawing off the limbs.

The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill; the Transportation bill; and the Financial Services bill that funds consumer protections and regulation of big banks will all see big cuts because of the draconian spending caps.

Today's package will squeeze out investments in our infrastructure, jobs programs, early childhood education, scientific research, and all the things that need to be priorities. We are turning our backs on working families across the country who depend on these programs every day.

We all believe in the free market system. We all believe in capitalism. We all want to reward risk-takers and provide a good environment for growth for those men and women who will make the investments to hire the workers. But capitalism is not a perfect system.

It is these programs in this bill that we need to fund to make sure that we grow the entire economy, that we have sustained growth, we invest in education, we invest in research, and we invest in transportation infrastructure, in order for us to grow the economy.

As former Appropriations Chairman David Obey used to say, those programs were about ``knocking the rough edges off of capitalism.'' On this side of the aisle, we believe making those investments is best for the economy. That is what is at stake.

Yes, we must adequately fund defense, veterans programs, and the legislative branch of government. But that can't come at the expense of everything else.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it unanimous here. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Utah for offering this amendment and Mr. Richmond for coming here to support it.

Again, everything has been said. This is appropriate. We are in unchartered waters here. We were at the baseball practices. We saw what happened to our colleague.

We go out to events; we can have security. We go to our office; we can have security. You come home, and you can't. So I think this is appropriate.

I want to thank you for taking this issue up on behalf of the body. We have so many Members today that will take opportunities to diminish this body, and you stood up and showed some leadership in enhancing this body. I want to support this amendment, and I thank the chairman for allowing this to happen.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman.

I think the Wounded Warrior Project we have going on here in the House of Representatives is a great project. It is a great opportunity, as you articulated, to get people into the legislative process, both in our district offices and here in Washington, D.C., and I want to voice my support for that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have been here long enough to recognize that, at times, the majority party will come to some level of disagreement with the Congressional Budget Office. We were here during the healthcare debate, we were here during tax cuts and all kinds of different things that happened in the last 15 years that I have been here.

They are not perfect, and they sometimes annoy us. As I can tell from my good friend on the other side, he is in the annoyance period with the Congressional Budget Office. But this is an essential component to what we do here.

The Congressional Budget Office sincerely attempts to give us the best, most accurate information that they could possibly provide us, and those estimates change over time as circumstances change over time. When you are talking about one-sixth of the entire United States economy, it is going to be difficult to give you entirely accurate information.

But not having this essential service here, I think, would be detrimental to this Congress, detrimental to our ability to even gauge and forecast into the future, and so I oppose this amendment strongly and vigorously.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) who I know also has a strong opinion on this matter.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is breathtaking in its completely overt vindictiveness. Some Members don't like the calls the refs have made in games. You can have your opposition and your opinion. Here, we are trying to get the referee fired. We cannot function as a group here if we are going to continue to try to demean and criticize this very group that is trying to help us do our job.

As I said a few minutes ago, the Democrats have had a long list of frustrations with the CBO, but did we have the President, the leader of our party, and a significant number of Members of the United States Congress start bad-mouthing the CBO? We did not.

We had our complaints, in all fairness, but we think that this group of professionals is essential to how this body functions.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, if you are not going to just believe Democrats on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the distinguished ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Chairman, let me just say quickly again and reiterate that we are living in a world now where facts are trying to be diminished, science is trying to be diminished, and we rely on these professionals to give us as accurate information as we can possibly obtain at the time from the professionals that are in this office. We rely on this office very much to make the decisions that we make here that have such great importance. While they are not always perfect, I think they always put forth a good product for us.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me just say briefly that I support this amendment. Making the Capitol complex and other buildings in the legislative branch more family friendly is an important priority. People come here from all over the country to meet with us, to see the sights, and to witness democracy in action.

If you have traveled far and wide with your family like I have, you know how much of a difference that it would make even for a brief part of your day, like the inevitability of having to change a diaper. This amendment will make it a little bit easier. So this is just a very thoughtful, practical pro-family amendment, and I encourage all of our colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the consideration of H.R. 3219, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to present an amendment to H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act. This legislative package provides critical appropriations for national security, including for the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Energy's nuclear programs, and the Legislative Branch bill.

My colleagues, this is the primary constitutional duty of the Congress: to ensure the safety of the homeland and the American people.

This legislation is carefully crafted to meet that responsibility: funding our critical military priorities, supporting veterans, and making our borders more secure.

The core of this package is full-year funding for the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. I thank Chairwoman Granger for her leadership.

In total, the Defense portion of the bill provides $658.1 billion for these functions, an increase of $68.1 billion in base discretionary funding above the fiscal year 2017 enacted levels.

There is no doubt that this is a significant increase from the current spending levels, and certainly from the last 8 years. But this increase is vitally important to continue the process we started this spring: to rebuild, repair, and re-equip our Armed Forces that we started in the 2017 appropriations package.

Mr. Chairman, Secretary of Defense Mattis has quite correctly made readiness and modernization of our forces his top priorities.

It is a fact today that we have too many aircraft that cannot fly, too many ships that cannot sail, and too many troops who cannot deploy either because they are not properly trained or there are not enough of them.

So how did we get there? Because in recent years, we have been just getting by--reducing investments in our military as the world becomes more dangerous, and avoiding tough choices.

The package before us today will sustain a much-needed rebuilding of our military after a half decade of cuts, while our troops remained in constant combat, as they do today.

We provided prioritized funding to necessary but unfunded equipment and weapons platforms. We have boosted missile defense, a program that has taken on critical importance as North Korea, unabatedly, tries to marry its nuclear warheads with new ballistic missiles.

We increased funding for the vital training that prepares our warfighter for any contingency. This legislation also supports our military families. After all, they serve, too. We included a 2.4 percent pay increase for our servicemen and -women, the largest such raise in 8 years, and they deserve it.

Within the Military Construction and Veterans portion of this bill-- and I thank Chairman Dent for his leadership--military infrastructure funding has increased by 25 percent above current levels. We continue our efforts to rebuild our Armed Forces by ensuring that our warfighters have the support they need.

We cannot forget those who have served. This measure increases funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs to 5 percent over current levels to provide veterans and their families with access to medical care and other benefits they have earned and deserve.

Within the Energy and Water section of this legislation--I thank Chairman Simpson for his leadership--funding is prioritized for critical nuclear programs that will help strengthen our security and deter threats around the globe.

We also support the maintenance of our Nation's waterways and support the work of the Army Corps to also ensure the resilience and security of our electricity infrastructure.

We recommit to opening Yucca Mountain as a safe and secure location to permanently store the Nation's nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes, and we promote basic science programs, which lay the foundation for new energy technologies.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this package also includes funding for important legislative branch functions--and I thank Chairman Yoder for his leadership--improving security to ensure

that our Members, our staffs, and visitors to this wonderful Capitol complex are always well protected.

Mr. Chairman, before I close, I offer thanks to members of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work and tough decisions over the past few months producing two appropriations bills, fiscal year 2017 and 2018, in less than 3 months.

As you know, we received the President's budget on May 23, just over 2 months ago, and since then, we have worked nonstop to put all 12 bills through the committee in record time. Each and every one of these bills deserves to be sent to the President's desk. I look forward to completing our work on all of our bills.

I also would like to extend my personal thanks to the entire committee and to our remarkable staff for their hard work on these bills and the eight yet to come.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY17.023

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the former chairman of the full committee and now the chairman of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) who is the chair of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) who is the chair of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), chairman of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder), the chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), a valuable member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a strong supporter of national defense.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. Chairman, before I close, I just want to take this opportunity to thank Mrs. Lowey for her work, and all of the staff here for the remarkable things they have been doing over the last 3 or 4 weeks. While we may disagree strongly on some issues, our committee, as Mr. Cuellar said a few minutes ago, works in a bipartisan way to get our bills across the finish line.

To all the members of the committee and our staff and to the ranking member, I thank them for the amicable way that all of us conduct business. It is part of the history and tradition of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in closing, I would remind the House that just yesterday we voted overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way to impose tough new sanctions on three aggressor nations: Russia, Iran and North Korea. Each pose their unique threats to our vital interests, their neighbors, and to global stability.

But little in history would predict that sanction alone will change the maligned behavior of these three regimes.

That is why we need to get this bill across the finish line, to guarantee that our military is always prepared to meet any threat from anyone anywhere, whether it be China in the Pacific; international terrorist groups like ISIS, al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, al Shabaab, Hezbollah, Hamas; and transnational drug smugglers and criminal gangs.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat: Congress' most important constitutional duty is to provide for the common defense. This appropriations package before us allows us to meet that solid responsibility.

I urge support of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.