Protecting Honest Fishermen Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 481 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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 today in support of House Resolution 481, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3180, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing we do in this body that is more important than actions we take for the defense of our Nation. We now face a more complex array of threats than we have at any time since the end of World War II.

North Korea continues to test ballistic missiles, has successfully tested an ICBM, and is continuing to move rapidly towards achieving the capability to strike U.S. soil.

A resurgent Russia is imposing its will across Europe, occupies Crimea, and is now using its military to support the Assad regime in Syria.

China is increasingly belligerent, continues to expand the size of its military and create bases on artificial islands in the South China Sea.

And Iran, Mr. Speaker, continues to work on its ballistic missile program and expand its influence as it supports terror across the Mediterranean and the larger Middle East.

Terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS continue to carry out attacks across the West and threaten the United States.

We have seen a dramatic increase in tensions on the Temple Mount, Mr. Speaker, in just the last few weeks, and we have men and women in uniform deployed around the globe fighting to defend our Nation.

Our intelligence community plays a crucial role in ensuring our decision-makers and our warfighters have the information they need to keep our Nation secure.

H.R. 3180 provides the intelligence community with the authorization it needs to continue working to protect and defend the United States, supports critical national security programs, such as those protecting Americans against terrorism, cyber attacks, and hostile foreign nations. The bill maintains critical congressional oversight of the activities of the intelligence community, and the bill makes no changes to any surveillance authorities, including those set to expire, which we will take up later this year in legislation separate from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, earlier this week, H.R. 3180 was considered under suspension of the rules, which is not at all uncommon for bills, like this one, that receive unanimous bipartisan support in committee.

While the bill received well over 50 percent of the votes of the House, it did not achieve the required two-thirds majority to pass under suspension, which is why we are here today debating this rule.

A large portion of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is understandably, as it should be, classified, which requires Members of this body to review the bill in the SCIF.

I want to personally thank members of the Intelligence Committee and their staff for facilitating that process and making it so easy for Members of this House to undertake. A bipartisan notice was sent out, provided to Members, informing us of the availability of the text for review. And the text, Mr. Speaker, was available for 10 days, twice as long as last year's bill.

My staff simply had to call and inform the committee that I would like to review the bill, and the committee asked when I would be available, and they made sure that a member of the committee staff was also there to answer any questions I had.

The process itself was seamless, was very easy, and was facilitated by the members of the Intelligence Committee staff.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good and important bill. It supports the men and women in our intelligence community and the work they do to keep us safe. This is not an issue we should politicize or subject to partisan debate.

The intelligence community plays a critical role in the defense of our Nation, and we need to support them, Mr. Speaker, by supporting this bill. Therefore, I urge support for the rule to allow consideration of H.R. 3180.

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

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

My colleague from Florida, with whom I have had the privilege of spending many hours in the Rules Committee debating this and a range of other issues, raised a number of points I think that are important to clarify.

First of all on the issue of minority recruitment, last night, in the Rules Committee, in open session, Chairman Nunes was asked about this, and he testified very clearly and directly that diversity is very important, that it is mission-critical for the reasons that my colleague from Florida stated.

I can report that there are several provisions in the classified annex--I won't go into the details about them--with which my colleague may or may not be familiar that support the whole notion of Centers of Academic Excellence, which are particularly focused on recruiting young people, recruiting minorities and young people across the board for service in the intelligence community.

We tend, in these rule discussions, Mr. Speaker, to have a lot of arguments and criticism of procedure. The Democrats this morning seem to be particularly concerned about our same-day authority. But I would just note, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly confident that my constituents who are watching this--and, I would say, probably most Americans watching--would understand the importance of the House of Representatives getting its work done in a timely manner. And certainly, when it comes to healthcare, the arguments and the criticism from the other side of the aisle lose a little bit of their credibility when they simultaneously attack the Republicans for moving too slowly and then also for moving too quickly.

What I can tell you is we are debating hugely important issues and hugely important topics. We are absolutely committed to repealing and replacing ObamaCare. It is a system that is collapsing. It is a system that has devastated the lives of people across this country. It is a system that has driven premiums and deductibles through the roof. It has absolutely limited people's choice in terms of insurance plans, in terms of healthcare providers. It is a system that is failing.

We have seen the Democrats' fundamental approach was a government mandate and their attempt to force people across this Nation to buy health insurance. They thought that, through a government mandate, they would be able to force young people into these insurance pools and, therefore, drive the cost down. That is not what happened. It didn't work.

We know we have got to put in place a system that will be able to provide people the kind of care that they need, access, as well as lowering the cost and increasing availability. So there are a whole range of very important substantive efforts going on.

I think that it is clear that the folks on the other side of the aisle don't support the direction we are going in, may

not support the policy, but the people across this Nation--certainly, in my home State of Wyoming--spoke very clearly last November that they wanted a change, that they wanted to see the government reduce its role in their lives, and that they wanted to see us begin the process of building our military, rebuilding what has been lost over the course of the last 8 years, as well as rebuilding the facilities and the capabilities of our intelligence community, and that is exactly what this bill does. That is exactly what we are here doing this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is why it is so important that my colleagues support this rule, that we provide the authority that the intelligence community needs through this bill to continue to do its important work to keep us safe.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 481 and the underlying bill, H.R. 3180, ensure the men and women of our intelligence community have the tools and the resources they need to continue the vital role they play in helping us address the threats facing our Nation.

I do want to point out, Mr. Speaker, my colleague is accusing the Republicans of being brazen and reckless because of our same-day rulemaking authority. I would only note that in the 111th Congress, when they were in the majority, they enacted this process 26 times; in the 110th Congress, 17 times.

It is an important ability for us to have when we know we might need to move quickly on something. As a member of the Rules Committee, I am committed to ensuring we do everything possible to make sure that we are able to bring bills to this floor that carry out the kind of changes and improvements that the people of this Nation sent us all here to undertake.

I was really disappointed, Mr. Speaker, earlier this week when this bill was defeated under suspension of the rules. There are many things that are partisan issues in this body, and it is too bad when the minority uses the Intelligence Authorization bill as part of a political stunt to make what should be a bipartisan process and a bipartisan committee appear partisan.

The bill, H.R. 3108, received unanimous support in committee, and I certainly hope today, Mr. Speaker, that the minority members of that committee, and frankly all on the minority side who understand the importance of the intelligence community in keeping our Nation safe, will put aside the partisanship, will put aside the games that the American people are so tired of, and will join me in supporting a good, effective, and important bill, that, frankly, the minority members in the Intelligence Committee worked very hard to help craft.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 3180.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I rise to debate the rule for H.R. 3180, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

I was somewhat dismayed earlier this week when my friends across the aisle attempted to jam today's bill through this body by jettisoning regular order and bringing the bill up under suspension.

Luckily, we can add this shortsighted attempt at governing to their long list of legislative failures. And although I may be pleased that their suspension shenanigans failed, my frustration was born anew when we were informed that the bill would come to the floor under yet another closed rule.

This is all bad enough, and I will come back to it in a moment, but first we need to discuss the blanket martial law provision that my friends on the other side put into this rule.

This move, especially when considered in the context of those mentioned

above, truly elevated poor governing to an art form.

I want the American people, Republican and Democrat and Independents alike, to be crystal clear on what is happening here today. By putting a blanket martial law provision into this rule, my friends across the aisle were trying to make it as easy as possible for them to pass a healthcare bill that they had never seen. The bill would have surely ripped healthcare away from millions of Americans and unceremoniously upended one-sixth of our economy.

Thankfully, Senators Collins, Murkowski, and McCain, and tens of thousands of regular Americans-turned-activists ensured that this effort failed.

Since day one, the approach of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on healthcare or, for that matter, any number of other important issues has been horrendous. It has been rushed; it has been secretive; it has been chaotic; and it has been inspired by the desire for a cheap win rather than the desire to make our healthcare system stronger and more widely available to all Americans.

Truly, whether it is healthcare, veterans, or the authorization of funding for something as important as our intelligence community, the approach leaves some of us bewildered, dismayed, and gravely concerned for the well-being of our country.

Indeed, when discussing something as important as the authorization for funding for the intelligence community, we ought to proceed in a manner that allows all Members of this body the opportunity to weigh in with their concerns. This closed process does a disservice not only to those of us who do not sit on the committee of jurisdiction, but also the intelligence community and the American people.

As an example, when I did sit on this committee, I was vice chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I worked diligently to ensure that minorities were given equal opportunity to break into the upper ranks of the intelligence community.

Since leaving that committee, I have continued this important work and introduced an amendment to a previous iteration of the underlying bill that called for the Director of National Intelligence to put forth a plan that would encourage diversity hires throughout the intelligence community. Frustratingly, I am stripped of such an opportunity today because of the Republican leadership's unyielding devotion to perpetuating a closed process.

Additionally, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my friend, has also offered amendments to the underlying bill in the past that call for an increase in the recruitment and training of minorities as officers and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency. She, like the majority of our colleagues, will not be afforded a similar opportunity this time around.

This is troublesome because diversity is a mission imperative for the intelligence community. Not only do we need to see minorities have more opportunities to climb the ranks, but we also need to recruit Americans who will be able to blend in, speak foreign languages, and understand the cultures in countries that are now central to our foreign policy interests.

At the end of the day, such diversity is achieved through the hiring process, and, therefore, we need to ensure that we are hiring Arab Americans, Iranian Americans, Pakistani Americans, Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, women, gays, and many other Americans from diverse backgrounds as we confront a myriad of threats and work harder to better understand our adversaries, wherever they may lurk. We do not seek this diversity in the name of political correctness but, rather, in the name of national security. As I have said before, if the intelligence community is to succeed in its global mission, it must have a global face.

I have no doubt that scores of Members would like to have offered amendments addressing the issues I have just mentioned as well as many other issues that are of particular concern to them and their constituents. Unfortunately, under this rule, they will not be afforded such an opportunity today.

Those who work in the intelligence community serve our country faithfully and bravely, knowing that they will never receive the public recognition they so richly deserve. In fact, they have served and continue to serve knowing that not only will they not receive well- earned accolades, but that they will, upon occasion, have to endure unfounded and offensive statements from this administration. These statements began before the current administration even moved in down Pennsylvania Avenue.

I quote the following from the administration's, President's, Twitter account: ``Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to `leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?''

I find that shameful and absolutely unfounded in making such a statement. Comparing these brave and patriotic Americans to Nazis? You really have to be kidding me.

As a former member of HPSCI, I will not sit idly by while anyone maligns the honorable work these proud Americans do day in and day out to protect our country. But it seems that, with this closed process and their continued support of President Donald John Trump, even as he slowly erodes the foundation of our democracy one tweet at a time, is exactly what my friends and the Republican Congress are doing.

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

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

The brazen and reckless manner in which this bill was first brought to the floor is evidence that my friends across the aisle have still not figured out how to govern. The learning curve may be steep, but it is not that steep.

Quite simply, my friends, it is time for you to start governing responsibly, not with closed rules and martial law, without hearings, and without CBO scores, but through regular order, with an opportunity for all Members and, through them, their constituents to take part in legislating. The White House may be in chaos, but that is no reason for the House to legislate in a similar manner.

For the good of the country, we must return to regular order. We must work to ensure that those serving in the intelligence community are able to do their best work, to do it as safely as possible, and to do it knowing that they will receive the respect they deserve from all branches of their government. I worry that they, increasingly, do not receive this respect, and that this disrespect, should it continue, will make it more difficult for us to retain and recruit the talent we so desperately need to protect our national security.

Of course, the intelligence community is only one part of our national security apparatus. The men and women in our military are an equally important part of maintaining our national security. And, unfortunately, we learned just yesterday that these brave servicemembers are not immune from baseless attacks from the administration.

It was announced, on the 69th anniversary of President Truman's issuing an executive order that desegregated the Armed Forces, that transgender servicemembers would no longer be able to serve in the military. Were these individuals, numbering between 10,000 and 15,000, banned because they are not brave, because they are not patriotic, because they are incapable of meeting the rigorous requirements of being in the military? No, they have been banned because bigotry defeated decency yesterday, and they have been banned because of who they are.

As I mentioned the other evening, I had three uncles who were in the Army. They served proudly. They served bravely. They served in a segregated Army. Two of them received purple hearts.

It was a great offense that they had to serve in a segregated Army in which they were made to feel that somehow their bravery, their patriotism, and their devotion to their brothers in arms was somehow less because of the color of their skin.

President Truman knew this was wrong, and he ended it. Simply put, President Truman knew then what our current President is incapable of understanding today: the strength of our military is not found in the race or the religion or the creed or the sex or the gender identity of its servicemembers, but rather in the bravery and honor exhibited by these individuals on a daily basis. They, like all of us here today, are proud citizens of this country. They, like all of us here today, are God's children. I thank them for their service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.