King Cove Road Land Exchange Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 454 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 454, which provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act; H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act; and H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act.

Mr. Speaker, our domestic energy industry has suffered greatly over the last 8 years under outdated regulations and burdensome bureaucratic red tape that have prohibited growth and innovation. Today's rule allows for consideration of two very important bills that will provide clear and transparent policies for our pipeline permitting processes, making them more efficient and effective so that we can fully realize the North American energy boom; create American jobs; grow our economy; and strengthen our relations with our largest energy trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

The first bill, H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, is sponsored by my colleague, Mr. Flores of Texas.

This bill reinforces the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's role as the lead agency for siting interstate natural gas pipelines by directing it to identify and invite all agencies considering an aspect of an application to establish a schedule for concurrent reviews, and to impose deadlines for final decisions.

Recent advancements in energy exploration have allowed companies to tap into previously inaccessible natural gas reserves, leading to a dramatic increase in domestic production. The increased supply has lowered energy costs and increased demand for natural gas.

As a result, current U.S. pipelines are now operating near capacity, making new pipelines necessary to deliver gas to consumers across the Nation, especially to those in the Northeast and Midwest, where demand for energy is high, but where they lack the infrastructure to deliver domestic natural gas. Additionally, due to its abundance and affordability, many manufacturers are beginning to rely on natural gas as a primary fuel.

Unfortunately, the permitting process for new pipelines is arduous and unnecessarily burdensome. Currently, when siting a pipeline project, multiple permits are required, including permits under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act, for example. According to the Government Accountability Office, the average processing time from pre-filing to certification for interstate natural gas pipelines has been 558 days. We cannot afford to wait that long, Mr. Speaker.

It is critical that we expand and modernize our Nation's pipeline infrastructure to ensure the access to affordable energy and affordable prices for consumers across the country. In order to do this, we simply must promote timely and efficient reviews as well as coordination among Federal, State, and local regulators. This bill accomplishes these goals, and I support its passage.

The rule we are discussing today also provides for consideration of H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). This bill creates a uniform and transparent process to authorize the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of international transfers of oil, natural gas, and electricity imports and exports.

The bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review cross-border oil and natural gas pipelines and the Department of Energy to review cross-border electric transmission facilities, requiring the relevant official to issue a certificate of crossing, unless it is found not to be in the public interest.

Recent advances in technology, Mr. Speaker, have dramatically increased our ability to harness our vast natural resources, but the current ad hoc permitting process has inhibited energy producers from exporting American-made energy to our international trading partners and has significantly delayed recent proposals, such as the Keystone XL pipeline.

The value of energy traded between the United States and its North American neighbors exceeded $140 billion in 2015, with $100 billion in U.S. energy imports, and over $40 billion in exports. We simply cannot afford to gamble our energy security and competitiveness on an inefficient permitting process.

Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, also allows for consideration of H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). This bill authorizes an equal value land exchange to facilitate the construction of an 11-mile road linking the remote city of King Cove and the city of Cold Bay, which has a modern airport. The State of Alaska will transfer approximately 43,000 acres to the Department of the Interior to add to the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in return for 206 acres of Federal lands to build the road.

This road is critical, Mr. Speaker, because harsh winter conditions make transporting individuals in the remote King Cove community of nearly 1,000 people dangerous and sometimes fatal: gale-force winds ground planes and prevent sea travel; evacuations can take days; and the hovercraft terminal and medical facility that Congress temporarily provided funds for, in lieu of land for the road, ceased operation in 2010.

The King Cove community has been denied proper hospital care and access to essential emergency services since they began fighting for this road 40 years ago, and that, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable.

Ensuring these folks have ground transportation options for accessing the regional hub at Cold Bay, especially during harsh winters, is vital to the safety of this community in emergency situations.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage support for the rule for these important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), my friend and colleague, and the sponsor of H.R. 218.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I share my colleague's dedication to job creation, and what we know is that the kind of job creation we need in this Nation can only come with access to reliable, affordable sources of energy. Our fossil fuels in this country are a national treasure, and these bills that are being considered under this rule today are bills that would help to streamline the regulatory process.

We have been, Mr. Speaker, really facing a war on fossil fuels during the course of the last 8 years. We have seen these industries targeted, completely unfairly targeted, based on some notion that, by shutting down our fossil fuel industry, we are somehow going to be able to continue to have economic growth. We have seen the environmental officials of the previous administration even admit before this body that things like the Clean Power Plan would result, if fully implemented, in a negligible impact on the environment.

So, again, I think that it is important to recognize that it is at the center of the agenda that we are pushing forward, frankly, with historic progress in this Congress to begin to generate the kind of economic growth that we really need to get back on track.

We have been stagnant now for 8 years. We have seen overreach from the Federal Government. We have seen a situation in which companies, industry, individuals, and small businesses are strangled by regulatory red tape.

No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be oversight. No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be environmental review, but what we know is we have got to streamline it.

We cannot be in a position where bureaucrats--and, frankly, it is often unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.--impose absolutely unattainable restrictions, impose rules that our industry can't meet and prevent us from being able to have access to our own energy sources. Again, it is that reliable, affordable energy that will allow our economy to grow and bring back the jobs that the gentleman says, and to which I agree, are so important for this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

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

I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about energy. They don't want to talk about fossil fuels. They don't want to talk about how important these are to the economy.

I would propose, Mr. Speaker, maybe what we should do is turn out the lights in this Chamber. Maybe we ought to turn off the air conditioning, Mr. Speaker, and we could have the debate in the dark, which is where we would be, frankly, if we followed the energy policies in the approach of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

These bills are hugely important, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we are able to continue to get access to the energy that we need; and it is crucially important that we not skip over the burden that has been caused by the Federal Government, by the regulatory burden we have been feeling, and that we take action, as is our responsibility, to begin to help to roll back that overreach, to begin to help to provide some relief so that we can, in fact, get the jobs back that our colleagues say they desire so much and that we know we need.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

I am proud to be here, and I am proud of the agenda that we have taken up under the Republican leadership in this Congress. We are indeed doing the important work that the people sent us here to do.

So far, just a list of some of the things that we have done in the first few months of this Congress: We have taken the first step in our obligation to repeal and replace ObamaCare, a system that is absolutely failing, that is causing rising premiums. It is causing people to lose their insurance all across the Nation, a system that will collapse if we don't fix it. We, the House Republicans, have taken important steps in order to begin the repeal and replace process of ObamaCare.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have passed a bill to repeal and replace Dodd- Frank, legislation that was strangling our local community banks across the country. We have taken a step to begin to fix that and provide relief.

We have also dealt with important immigration issues and taken important action in terms of passing legislation to end human trafficking.

I am very proud, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, of the work that we have done to pass the National Defense Authorization Act to begin to rebuild our military and get the military the resources it needs so that it can defend us against a growing array of threats and a very complex array of enemies across the Nation.

We have also, Mr. Speaker, taken important steps using the congressional review action process to repeal regulations put in place over the last 8 years that have been damaging to our industry, to individuals, to small businesses all across the Nation.

We have been historically productive, and it may be that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't agree with the steps that we have taken, but it is simply not accurate to say we aren't focusing on what is important. We are focusing on those issues that matter most to the men and women across this Nation that will begin to make sure we can keep everybody safe, begin to make sure we can defend ourselves, begin the process of reforming our outdated and burdensome tax code, as well, Mr. Speaker, as ensuring we bring back the kind of economic growth we know we need and fixing our healthcare system.

These bills that we are debating today, the rule for these bills, are part of that process. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Flores, Mr. Mullin, and Mr. Young, for their hard work on this legislation.

In Wyoming, which is one of our Nation's largest energy-producing States, we know how important it is that we work to develop our domestic energy resources. We know the technology that has been available that has helped us do that, that has helped us begin to, for the first time ever, have energy independence that has really helped us begin to have the kind of economic growth we need.

We cannot depend just on that technology. We also have got to improve the permitting process, Mr. Speaker. Improving the pipeline permitting process by promoting the kind of timely review, supporting interagency coordination, and creating a new and streamlined system for safety that will help us to transport our energy exports and imports are all crucial steps in our ability to ensure affordable energy and economic growth.

The other bill that we are considering under this rule, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 218, will provide a desperately needed road, as you heard my colleague Mr. Young explain, to improve the safety and well-being of the residents of King Cove, Alaska, and save lives, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore, I urge adoption of both the rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I simply associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Nadler. I think he explained the history of this law very, very well.

It is a very basic principle. People who work on these cruise ships should be compensated and taken care of if they are injured. There is no reason that the cruise line industry cannot afford to do this.

To discriminate against people who happen to be from different countries who are working on these ships makes no sense whatsoever. Our laws apply to whoever is working on the ships and should continue to do so. This is simply an effort to deny workers' rights from a cruise line industry that can more than afford to take care of the people who work there.

These are not easy jobs. I confess, I have only taken one cruise in my life, but the people who work there work very long hours, very hard, in very difficult conditions. If they are injured or sick, they should be taken care of. As Mr. Nadler said, the best way to do that is under the current common practice, which is the cruise line does take care of them and makes sure they get the healthcare they need until they are able to work. But if that is not done, the right to sue in court to protect your rights as a worker should not be taken away.

I do not believe that we have a problem in this country that workers are being too highly compensated and have too many rights. We don't need to take away the few that they have.

I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any speakers either, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill. I want to begin by thanking the chairman and all of the members of the committee. As has been noted many times, this is the most bipartisan committee in Congress; and I think, once again, even in difficult circumstances, we have proved that this year. That is, in large part, due to the leadership of Chairman Thornberry. I thank him for that.

I also thank our staff, which does an unbelievable job. There are hundreds, if not thousands of amendments, that come at them. They manage that. You see the very few that actually come through either in committee or on the floor. They work through literally thousands of ideas and do an amazing job, so I really want to thank our staff for their great work.

In particular, I want to thank Vickie Plunkett. This will be her last markup. She is retiring. She has done a fabulous job for our staff. She basically exemplifies everything I just said about how great our staff is, how they work in a bipartisan manner and do a great job to serve our country. So, I thank Vickie for her incredible service to our committee and to the country.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill that we should support because, make no mistake about it, what the chairman and many others have said is true: we face a complex threat environment. The U.S. national security is at risk.

I take Mr. Nolan from Minnesota's point that spending a lot of money on wars that we didn't need to engage in does cost us at home, and that point is valid, but so is the point that we face threats we must confront.

North Korea is testing intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is no doubt that their goal is to develop a nuclear missile, capable of striking the U.S.

Being from the West Coast--and they always say that it could hit Seattle. I don't know why they don't talk about any other city on the West Coast. It could hit a lot of different places. We need to be worried about that. We need to be prepared to stop that.

Russia continues to undermine not just our elections, but democracy itself, across Europe, and even down in the Middle East and Africa. We need to be prepared to confront that.

We face a terrorist threat. 9/11 killed 3,000 people in this country because we weren't ready to prevent it. The groups that supported that attack have not gone away; they have metastasized.

Now, I will completely agree with some of my friends on the left, who think that the terrorism threat is often overblown. I think it is often also a mistake to demonize the Muslim religion. And even though I know some people don't do that, they simply want to confront groups like al- Qaida and ISIS, Steve Bannon, who works right next to the White House, has said that Islam is a totalitarian ideology of subjugation, it is not a religion. He thinks all Muslims are a threat.

To the extent that we adopt a national security policy that views the world that way, we make the problem worse. That is what ISIS wants; that is what al-Qaida wants. They want a clash of civilizations. We should not want that. They have killed more Muslims than any other religion on Earth. Muslims have the biggest stake in this. We must work with them, not against them, to confront that terrorist threat that ISIS and al-Qaida and others present.

On the broader budget issue, as I mentioned a couple of times, the first 6 months of this year, we had a number

of folks in the Pentagon come over and spell out all kinds of nightmare scenarios about every bad thing that could conceivably happen--some of ones that I mentioned, and hundreds of others that I haven't. And I understand that. That is their job. Their job is to worry about what could come at us.

But, past a certain point, that isn't helpful. We need a plan, we need a strategy to confront this, and we need to make choices. That is the one thing that I am still concerned about with this bill. It really doesn't make choices. It continues to spend money in a variety of different places, without a recognition of finite resources and choices that need to be made about how to confront the threats that are most dangerous to us--how to spend that money in the best way possible. That is something that I think we need to work on going forward.

We also have the budget problem that I described. And I won't give the same full speech that I gave before, but I will simplify it and say that there is a consensus in Congress and in the country that we need to balance the budget without raising taxes and without cutting any programs that people might like. That doesn't work. It simply is not possible. It doesn't add up.

That is why we don't have a budget resolution. Any budget resolution that the Republican Congress could put on the floor will fail to meet some of the promises that they, and others, have made. We have got to be honest about that, because this bill, again, is $72 billion over the budget caps. It is actually $91 billion over the budget caps, if you add in--well, sorry, $81 billion over the budget caps, if you add in the money that we took from OCO to put into the base.

So, if we do not raise the budget caps, this goes away and leaves us, once again, in the land of uncertainty for the Department of Defense. We have to make choices on the budget going forward so that we don't leave the Defense Department in the lurch, not knowing how much money that they are going to have. So, we still don't have a budget resolution in front of us.

And, lastly, I do want to point out that the rest of the budget does matter. The chairman and I have had a little bit of an argument about this: we are the Armed Services Committee, we should pay attention to that; you know, don't sacrifice our troops for the sake of domestic--he always says political priorities. That is the one word in his argument that I find not really appropriate.

There is nothing political about it. It is a policy choice. It is basically deciding what domestic priorities are important.

And, make no mistake about it, the discretionary budget is a zero-sum game. I mentioned yesterday the President's budget: a $54 billion plus- up for defense, and $54 billion cut from nondefense discretionary. So don't tell me that one thing doesn't have anything to do with the other.

But even the so-called budget resolution, the budget agreement that the House Republicans have come up with, but have not yet dared to put to a vote, has a $72 billion plus-up for defense, and a $5 billion cut for domestic spending. So, again, the two are absolutely connected.

What are we talking about with domestic spending? I won't go through all of it. I will just mention a couple of things.

Yesterday, I mentioned our infrastructure. Bridges are collapsing all across the country. I saw a big story yesterday about how the Memorial Bridge is about to fall down. We have incredible infrastructure needs that lead to the strength of our country that are connected, just like national defense is to the strength of this Nation.

But another example, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center--it is close to my district, it is in Seattle--is doing incredible research right now, that figured out how to not use chemotherapy but actually go in, take out the white blood cells that aren't working, get them to work, and send them back in to successfully fight cancer. This has worked for blood cancers. They just started studies on lung cancer. But, basically, we could cure cancer, without going through the hell of chemo. The President's budget would cut Fred Hutchinson's funding by over two-thirds.

I don't think curing cancer is a political agenda. That is a very real need that has an incredible impact on the lives of Americans, just like national security. It is like making sure that North Korea doesn't hit us with a nuclear weapon, making sure that terrorist groups don't attack us. Curing cancer, stopping bridges from collapsing, these are priorities.

Because we are not making budget choices, these are priorities that get pushed aside. And if you plus-up defense and take it from nondefense discretionary, then you are having that very real impact.

Now, I am not going to say it has to be dollar for dollar. I think it probably should be, but we can negotiate around that. But to simply gut the nondefense discretionary budget to plus-up defense does not make this country safer.

We heard yesterday, hey, in a time of war, you make domestic sacrifices. And we have all read about World War II, all the domestic sacrifices that were made at that time. I get that.

But you know what else you do in a time of war? Well, you don't cut taxes. You raise them. Prior to 2001, we had never gone to war without raising taxes or issuing war bonds or, basically, asking for more money. But that, of course, we cannot do.

Again, I will say I care enough about the national security of this country, I would raise taxes to pay for it instead of simply adding to the deficit or stopping the ability of somebody like the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center from finding a cure for cancer. That is the choice that I would make. These choices are not being made in this budget resolution, and I think that places us at risk.

Lastly, the nondefense discretionary budget is the State Department, it is USAID, it is the Department of Homeland Security. If you are going to have a national security strategy, it can't just be the military. And you know who will tell you that more often than anybody? The military. They don't want to bear the entire burden.

General Secretary Mattis had the best quote on this. If you are going to cut diplomacy, if you are going to cut development, you better give me four more divisions because that is how many more wars I am going to have to fight.

So to say we are going to add all this money to defense, and defense is so important, and if you are against it because of other priorities, then you just don't care about the troops, is incredibly disingenuous because all of these other things matter to the national security of this country. And all we are getting out of the majority right now is an effort to plus-up defense at the expense of everything else.

I say an effort because they haven't actually voted on it yet. It hasn't actually happened. And it is more likely than not that this bill--good, though, it is--and the great work that has been done on a number of different policy divisions that don't have anything to do with the money, the good work on acquisition reform to try to make sure we get more for the money that we spend, all of that is in jeopardy because this bill has at least $72 billion in it over the budget caps that is, more likely than not, not going to be there come October 1 or the end of this year.

So if we don't make the choices on the budget that reflect the priorities of the entire country, that actually reflect the budget numbers, then we are doing a disservice to the men and women who serve our country.

It is a good bill. It is going to be better once we figure out the budget issues and actually start making the choices that are necessary to make us stronger in every aspect of society.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I have supported it in the past. And as Mr. Emmer just mentioned, the House has supported it in the past in each of the last 2 years.

I admire the persistence of the gentleman from Massachusetts in pursuing this issue. I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to convince our colleagues across the Capitol or the Pentagon to do this. I know of no opposition to the amendment.

I think the House should continue to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, neither do I have other speakers on this en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I inform my friend from Washington I have no speakers on this en bloc package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the gentleman from Washington when he expresses his appreciation to the members of our committee. Each one of the 62 members of our committee has contributed to the bill that is here before us today and, as the Chair knows, we have had more amendments considered over the last 3 days than ever before for a National Defense Authorization bill. So Members of the whole body have contributed in many ways.

I also agree with the gentleman that our staff on both sides of the aisle, led by Jenness Simler and Paul Arcangeli, have done a terrific job in helping to manage this process and to shape and guide what has been historic levels of interest by Members on particular provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I think that you would find among our committee virtually, if not unanimous, agreement on two points. One is we live in an increasingly dangerous world. The second one is we have done deep damage to our military because of the budgets cuts, the continuing resolutions, the erratic nature of funding over the last few years.

Certainly, the members of our committee who go out and actually talk to the people who serve have heard, seen, witnessed firsthand airplanes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, training that has not gone on, movers--we are trying to save money for the military, so we are hiring cut-rate movers, and members of the military are experiencing incredible damage to their household goods as they are shuffled about from place to place involuntarily. Sometimes there are movers with criminal records who can't actually get on the military base they are supposed to be delivering to. I mean, just example after example of how these cuts have affected the men and women who serve.

And as Secretary Mattis says, the only reason we are doing so well around the world is because they have sucked it up and borne the burden. Deep damage that this bill starts to reverse.

I appreciate all the Members who support fixing our planes, getting the training, having ships that sail, better missile defense, all the things that are in this bill.

I am not going to engage in a detailed discussion about the budget. The gentleman and I discuss this frequently.

I would just say, Mr. Chairman, I believe the first obligation of the Federal Government is to defend the country. Article I, section 8 says that Congress has the power and the responsibility to raise and support armies, provide and maintain navies, provide the rules and regulations for the military forces of the United States. That is our job, and I think that is our first job.

So I agree that some of the cuts that have been proposed in other domestic programs, discretionary programs, are inappropriate, and we ought to evaluate each of them on their merits. And that continues to be my point when it comes to defense.

We evaluate our obligations to the country and to the men and women who serve, based on the merits of this argument. We don't tie it to other domestic programs. We do not say we are only going to increase defense to fix our planes if we can increase the EPA an equal amount. We don't tie it to other things.

The obligations to the men and women who risk their lives stand on their own, and that, at least in my view, is our first obligation.

Now, when we start talking about budgets, we get into all sorts of conversations about how mandatory spending is really where more than two-thirds of the budget is; how that is what has been growing; how defense is down to about 16 percent of the budget, and as it has been shrinking, the deficit has been going up. Obviously, defense is not the cause when it comes to deficits.

We can also, when we talk about tax, start talking about economic growth and this lackluster growth that the economy has suffered, at least over the last 8 years, and the need to get things going to help with the deficit.

Lots of issues to discuss, but the issue before us today is how we fulfill our responsibilities to the men and women who serve and to the country that is relying on us to protect them from missiles, to help protect them from terrorist attacks, to support the men and women who are actually performing those missions.

I think this bill advances that cause. A number of Members on both sides of the aisle have contributed to it. I think and hope it deserves the support of most all Members of the House, and I urge support for this en bloc package.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect and admiration for the gentlewoman from New York and her efforts to represent her district, her people, and try to make life better. It kind of relates to some of the conversations Mr. Smith and I were just having about tax policy, about industrial policy, about regulations, about how we have, in this country, become less competitive internationally than we should.

However, I must oppose this amendment because the bottom line is that it is not a matter of national security where the DOD buys its knives, forks, and spoons.

If Members needed further evidence of the wide range of issues which we deal with in the National Defense Authorization Act, this bill is a key example.

I think the gentlewoman accurately described the history. The Berry amendment was passed in 1940 to make sure that food and textiles were procured from the United States to support our military efforts.

In the 1970s, they put in a specialty metals provision, and attached to that was a comma that said ``including flatware.'' So then it turned out there wasn't anybody here at home that made flatware because of these international competitive issues, and DOD came to us more than a decade ago and said, ``Would you please get rid of that portion of the Berry amendment?'' and we did.

Now the question is: Are we going to start adding back specific sorts of items which DOD may buy and say you can only buy it from one place, whether or not it is critical to our country's national security?

Now, the gentlewoman mentioned that GSA is buying some spoons and knives and so forth from this manufacturer, and that is great. If we do, I hope that happens, and I hope more jobs come to her district. But to put into Federal law that the only place the Department of Defense can buy its knives and forks and spoons is from this one company, I think, starts to get us into micromanagement of industries and takes us away from the focus of this bill, which should be the troops, what is the best thing for them.

So with all my admiration for the gentlewoman, I oppose this amendment. We cannot go down the road of adding category after category after category of items to help our districts at the expense of our troops and the best use of dollars when it is not a matter of vital national security. I just don't think that the knives and forks we use qualify as vital national security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is a procedural motion that, in my view, should be rejected.

We could spend all day and night arguing provisions that prohibit what is not in the bill. There is nothing in this bill that authorizes a border wall. The focus of the bill is the men and women who serve our Nation in the military and the national security of the United States. And that is what I want to take a moment to talk about.

I would suggest that all of us think back just to the events of the last 10 days. On July 4, North Korea launched what most observers believe is an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching parts of the United States. And we know they already have nuclear weapons.

On July 9, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi went into Mosul to celebrate the ousting of ISIS with U.S. advisers, U.S. airpower, and U.S. intelligence.

Also, this week, the Chinese navy conducted drills in the Mediterranean on their way to conduct joint exercises with the Russians in the Balkans.

This is just a taste of the world we live in, and there are provisions in this bill that address every one of these incidents, from more missile defense to getting more ships in the water faster and cheaper, to supporting our efforts against ISIS, al-Qaida, and terrorist groups.

But there is another event this week that I hope we all keep in mind. On Monday, July 10, a KC-130 crashed on its way across the country, resulting in the death of 15 marines and one sailor. We do not know what caused this crash, but the early evidence indicates that there was a catastrophic failure when it was cruising at altitude.

It will be fully investigated. But in the meantime, I think we always have to remember that, even on routine training missions, even on routine deployments, the men and women who serve are risking their lives for us. We owe them the best equipment, in the best shape, with the best training that our Nation can provide. Unfortunately, that is not what they have been getting.

This year, our committee has heard testimony that, under the budget caps, the Army is outranged, outgunned, and outdated. More than half the Navy aircraft cannot fly. More than half the planes in the Air Force qualify for an antique license in the State of Virginia. More than half the planes the Navy has can't fly. Unfortunately, accident rates are going up.

Sometimes I have heard the argument that: Well, we are not going to give them any more money until they can pass an audit or they can do this and that or the other thing.

But as everybody rushes out to get on their airplanes, just think about this: What if the board of directors of your airline decided that they are not going to spend any more money repairing planes until there is a bookkeeping problem solved in headquarters?

Yet that is exactly what we have been doing to our military. We have not been giving them the planes and other equipment in good repair.

Every year for 55 straight years, Congresses and Presidents of both parties have passed into law a National Defense Authorization Act. There is a lot of credit to go around, including the Members on both sides of this aisle who have contributed to this product. I am very grateful for what they have done. But what I am really grateful for are the men and women who serve and inspire us, the men and women who are counting on us.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say, whatever our differences on other issues, which we will have time to debate in another time and place, whatever our differences about what is in or not in this bill, we need to put those differences aside and continue to support the men and women who serve and defend us. Let's not let them down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 218.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record my statement on the ABCs of Izembek.

Alaska's ardently asking for action and assistance to acquire acute acres to always allow actual access across areas and assuredly avert atrocious aviation accidents after appalling administrative blockades on building basic boulevards between beautiful bays before blizzards.

The bill doesn't bombard birds like Black Brants because Congress can carefully craft conveyances to create consistent courses for certain care in this Cove community. Construction cop outs and crumbling commitments cause a cacophony of complex concerns and constitute considerable consternation when crossing channels in choppy conditions. Don's diligently doting on his district, dutifully demanding demonstrable developments daily so the Department doesn't dawdle on their domain. Despite dangerous dashes and emergency evacuations, expanding elevated environmental evaluations exploded expenses. Exact exchanges exempt events to enhance embarking on equally enjoyable exits in eleven expanses. Frankly, fifty-five frigid flights fleeing fast from freezing fields in furious flurries found frighteningly few fancy facilities for fearful families.

Geese gradually got generally greedy, grimly generating genuine grief on giant goals of going great grounds on gravel and grabbing glory from good glacial gateways.

Historically, hovercraft hijinks harmfully hampered hurrying to hospitals and hobbled healing, harpooning hope and hardening hardships near the harsh harbors. The House must hastily have a helpful hand in halting havoc and hindering hefty hazards for Izembek inhabitants instead of idling indefinitely. Interior's indecision impeded infrastructure and informally interrupted implementing instant improvements, isolating irate individuals in increasingly impassible journeys. Jewell jumped into jeopardy when justifying juxtapositions and jarring, jolty jaunts from King Cove that keep killing kind kin without kindling key kernels of keen knowledge.

King Cove lacks life-saving lanes linking lonesome localities on land while lofty liberals lamely lament losing limited landscapes and maroon many who might make mends with medical ministration. Masterful mandatory medivacs must make miraculous moves after miniscule mainland migrations. Narrow native neighborhoods need necessary navigable networks now that nasty neglect notched nineteen needless obituaries. Other offered options outlined aren't okay or optimal for opening outbound opportunities over a one-lane, non-paved preferred path across a pulchritudinous peninsula. Patients patiently practice peacefully praying to postpone pain and postmortems while partisan panels prioritize protecting a percent of the preserve over the perishing population.

Perhaps people quietly question this quixotic quandary, quickly quarreling over quality, quaint routes. Resilient rural Refuge residents require really rapid resolutions to reliably ride on requisite roads routinely in rough situations. Seventy segments of street are still stationed in the sanctuary, so small sections won't subvert the surroundings. The State swap saves the site's sheltered status while swelling up safety and security for this scorned society. 1,000 tormented townsmen tempt their tombs in terrifying travels. They take threatening treks that traverse the tough tundra between the two towns in treacherous temperatures. United, we urgently untie this unbelievably unjust ultimatum for a unique unwinding of unfortunately unreliable voyages.

Valid in vibrant victory we venture to vote to viciously vanish vanity and vacate this wrongdoing. When we want wins, wavering willfully won't work. We weigh wishes of wilderness with wild winter weather while ways wane for wandering within windstorms. Xylophone.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're yawning and yearning for me to yield and stop yapping like a yelling yahoo while you're still young. So I'll zig-zag and zoom past zany zealots in Zen like Ryan Zinke.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the author of the bill, the only Representative Alaska has here on this floor, and someone who understands this issue because he has been dealing with it for a number of years.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), who is hurriedly making his way to the front podium.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a subcommittee chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman of the Federal Lands Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire of the ranking member if he has any germane speakers left on this issue.

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

This is an issue that people have, for three decades, been trying calmly discuss and find an alternative. Unfortunately, the people of Alaska, who have been engaged in this effort for the last three-plus decades, have been rebuffed at every turn in which the only answer they got was the Federal Government here in Washington giving them an alternative, and forcing upon them an alternative that flat out didn't work, and it hasn't worked in the last 7 years.

One of the things we should realize is that this idea of building this road is not new. The House has voted to build this road. The Senate has voted to build this road. Unfortunately, they didn't vote it on the same bill, except, in 2009, when there was a piece of legislation that went through both the House and the Senate, which was very clear at the time that it was the intent of both the House and the Senate to build the road, but it did require the Interior Department to do the NEPA process. They took 4 years.

Now think of that. It was in 2009 when the bill was passed and the intent of Congress was very clear. Four years later, the Interior Department finally got around to doing the study, a study which, I might add, had five options that were added to it, one of which was to do nothing, and the Interior Department chose, after 4 years of study as their preferred option, to do nothing.

Therefore, all of the efforts and anguish of these people in Alaska went to naught because a bureaucracy here decided, despite what the House had said and despite what the Senate had said, that they knew best, despite what the people of Alaska needed, they knew best and their option simply was to do nothing.

This bill, let me remind you, all of the masses of people who are here, is not about a road. It is about a land transfer for a road. The State of Alaska is putting up 43,096 acres for new wilderness in exchange for 200-plus acres--240, I think, acres to be a road, a road that already exists. There is a 30-mile road that exists. The only problem is, only 19 of the 30 miles are constructed. They exist. They are there now.

What Alaska is asking is: Simply give us the last 11, so the road that does exist can be used. It can be used for them, for their medical needs, for their recreation, if they want to. I mean, it has been brought up that, heaven forbid, this might be used for economic advantage. I don't know why this community of around 1,000 people, about 80 percent are Native Alaskans, would ever have the audacity to think that they ought to have a job, or the audacity to think that maybe they should try and use something that is there to further their economic ability to actually earn a living.

How uppity can you get, when we realize that those of us sitting here 6,000 miles away really have the superior wisdom to tell those people living in King Cove how they actually should live their life, and we did it. We did it in the 1990s. We said: No, you can't have a road because we have a philosophical opposition to it. Instead, we will spend a heck of a lot of money to come up with a hovercraft that doesn't work, and is too expensive, and is useless, and it no longer exists.

And now you are saying, ``No, no, no, you can't have access to the mainland. You can't have access to an all-weather airport. You can't have access for medical care; you can't have access for jobs. You can't have access for anything. Instead, let's work together to come up with another really stupid idea that won't work as well,'' when the solution is simply to build a road, 11 miles to connect an existing road so people who live in King Cove can do it.

You have already heard the data that has been presented. In the last 30 years, 19 people have died. Nineteen people have died, and it can be traced specifically to the fact that they didn't have access to healthcare.

In the last 3 years, they have had over 50 cases when medevac had to be used, very expensively, by the Coast Guard to try and help people out there. You wouldn't have to do that if you simply had the silly road; the 70-year-old woman who had to wait 7 hours, suffering a heart attack before she could get medical care; the woman in labor who had to go 6 hours before she could get someplace to have medical care; the man who had the saw accident, who had to wait 12 hours before he was able to get any kind of medical care, simply because there is not an 11-mile single-lane gravel road to connect to the rest of the 30-mile road that already exists.

And we sit here and try and tell these people in Alaska what is best for them, what is good for them? And that is emotional? And that is irrational?

No. What is irrational is that we are going through this again, the same thing we did last decade, the same thing that happened in the 1990s. And it is going to continue until we finally say: People should have a right to decide for themselves what is best for them.

The people who live in this community want a road. It is not going to hurt anything. It is 200 acres, and this is a land exchange. Actually, I have to admit, I don't like that. Alaska is giving up 40,000 acres-- 40,000 acres--so they can do 200 acres of a road. I think that is an exorbitant fee that is being extracted from the State of Alaska just so they can give these people, the overwhelming majority of whom are Native Alaskans, the opportunity of having access to their community so they can get medical care or whatever else they need so they can have it.

And we are sitting here because we don't want to do a precedent. This is the right thing to do. We should do this. We should have been done it back in the Clinton administration when it first came up. We should have gone through with it in 2009 when they finally passed it in both the House and the Senate, and then had to wait 4 years for the Interior Department to study the issue, and their conclusion was: let's not do anything. That doesn't exist.

It is time for us to do something to help people, to put people above ideology, to pass the bill.

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

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

The amendment shifts workers who repair super yachts and large, luxury watercraft out of coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and into coverage under State workers' compensation programs.

But it doesn't just amend the longshoremen act. Rather, it creates a problem with the Coast Guard law. The Coast Guard opposed an identical amendment last year because it creates widespread damage to Coast Guard regulatory and enforcement authorities, implicates U.S. treaty obligations, and could affect the collection of tonnage taxes on foreign flagged vessels.

The Department of Labor also opposes the amendment because it could lead to uncertainty and foster litigation under the longshoremen coverage. Moreover, by shifting workers out of longshoremen into the weak State workers' comp laws such as Florida, it could permanently impoverish workers.

Last year, the Florida Supreme Court held that the Florida workers' compensation law was so anemic that it was unconstitutional.

If the goal is to provide reasonable insurance rates, then it should be in the insurance industry not by complicating the Coast Guard, by complicating the Department of Labor, and denying workers their benefits under the Longshoremen's Compensation Act.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Committee on Education and the Workforce opposing this amendment.

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2017.

Re Opposition to Making Amendment 302 in Order as part of the

National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2018 (H.R.

2810)

Hon. Pete Sessions,

Chairman, Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Ranking Member, Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter: I am

writing to request that you not make Amendment 302 in order

as part of the rule for the FY 2018 National Defense

Authorization Act (H.R. 2810).

The amendment offered by Representatives Frankel and Byrne

changes the definition of a ``recreational'' vessel under

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) boating safety authorizing

legislation. The amendment authors' goal is to change

workers' compensation coverage for those repairing luxury

water craft and superyachts by shifting coverage for these

workers from the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation

Act (LHWCA) into state workers' compensation programs.

However, the amendment does not amend the LHWCA. Rather it

changes the definition of ``recreational vessel'' under

Section 4301 of Title 46 (the Federal Boat Safety Act of

1971). According to the Coast Guard, this approach to

amending the LHWCA will have adverse collateral impacts on

Coast Guard regulatory and enforcement authorities, implicate

U.S. treaty obligations, and affect collection of tonnage

taxes on foreign flagged vessels. The USCG statement,

attached to this letter, notes that this provision could:

Exclude vessels now covered under the U.S. implementing

legislation for the International Convention on the Control

of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, and reduce

available civil monetary penalties to deter violations;

Allow a foreign vessel owner to exempt itself from tonnage

taxes by declaring its vessel to be under repair; and,

Allow foreign flagged vessels to avoid requirements for

safety management systems under the International Safety

Management Code.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected to this

provision in the last Congress, as it would ``lead to

uncertainty and foster litigation regarding Longshore Act

coverage'' because the definition of ``recreational'' vessel

introduces subjective criteria.

This identical amendment was included in the House National

Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 as Section 3512, but

was removed in the House-Senate conference following the

numerous objections raised by the U.S. Coast Guard and the

U.S. Department of Labor.

None of these concerns have been considered in hearings

within the respective committees of jurisdiction for USCG or

DOL, and deserve careful consideration before being brought

to a vote.

I thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Bobby Scott,

Ranking Member.

Encl: U.S. Coast Guard Views on Amendment to the National

Defense Authorization Act (this set of views applied to the

identical language included in Amendment 302 that was adopted

in Section 3512 the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization

Act).

Coast Guard Views on Sec. 3512 of H.R. 4909, the NDAA for FY17

The Coast Guard would oppose the previously referenced

amendment to 46 U.S.C. Sec. 4301. As a general matter, it

seems like this proposed amendment is out of place. Sec. 803

of the American Investment and Recovery Act amended sec.

2(3)(F) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act

(33 U.S.C. Sec. 902(3)(F)), a statutory regime squarely

within the purview of the Department of Labor (DOL). Indeed,

in 2011, it was DOL--not the Coast Guard--that promulgated

the rule in question that, according to industry background

documentation, would appear to be the root cause of this

issue. Thus, any changes to address this issue should be more

properly directed either to the Longshore and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act or to DOL and its implementing regulations.

Aside from the amendment's misplaced statutory location,

the proposed amendment contains numerous drafting issues. For

example, the proposed amendment contains no limitation of the

``dismantling'' language to those activities ``in connection

with the repair of such vessel.'' Irrespective of the

drafting issues, the proposed amendment would not provide any

immediate relief as the draft language contains terms

undefined by statute that prevent it from being self-

executing. Finally, if adopted, the amendment would likely

create a wholly unnecessary bifurcated regulatory scheme

between the DOL regulations under 20 C.F.R.

Sec. Sec. 701.501-701.505 and additional regulations

promulgated by the Coast Guard.

The proposed change to the definition of a ``recreational

vessel'' to include ``any vessel, including a foreign vessel,

being repaired or dismantled [. . .] during such repair or

dismantling if the vessel (1) shares elements of

design and construction of traditional recreational vessels

(as so defined); and (2) when operating is not normally

engaged in a military, commercial, or traditionally

commercial undertaking'' has significant impacts on Coast

Guard regulatory and enforcement authorities.

The change in the definition would expand the current

exclusion for ``recreational vessels'' from the U.S.

implementing legislation for the International Convention on

the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships.

Specifically, civil penalties for owners of ``recreational

vessels'' are statutorily limited to $5,000 as compared to

the $37,500 maximum penalty for all other vessel owners.

The change in the definition could be construed to allow a

foreign vessel owner to exempt itself from tonnage taxes

required under 46 U.S.C. Sec. 60301, by claiming that its

vessel is ``being repaired'' and thereby a recreational

vessel exempted from tonnage taxes.

The change in the definition could also be construed to

allow foreign flagged vessels to avoid the requirements to

maintain a safety management system onboard under 46 U.S.C.

Sec. 3201, et seq. by claiming that its vessel is ``being

repaired'' and thereby a recreational vessel exempted from

Safety Management Requirements under the International Safety

Management Code.

In addition to these statutory impacts, there are numerous

Coast Guard regulations not related to Longshoreman and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act authorities that would be

impacted by the change. These include:

33 C.F.R. Sec. 95.001

33 C.F.R. Sec. 151.51

46 C.F.R. Sec. 2.01-7

46 C.F.R. Sec. 4.03-50

46 C.F.R. Sec. 67.11

46 C.F.R. Sec. 136.105

This list is by no means exhaustive. Given the time for

review, the Coast Guard has not been able to conduct a

comprehensive review of statutory and regulatory impacts that

would be implicated by this change. Furthermore, as drafted,

this change would require the Coast Guard to reallocate a

substantial amount of financial and personnel resources to

ensure that its regulations were in alignment with the

revised definition. Such an undertaking is wholly

incompatible with the current fiscal climate.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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