ADVANCE Act

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe and for their work in ensuring that they have resources needed to keep our Armed Forces the greatest fighting force for peace on earth.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is simple and straightforward and affirms an example of the national goodness that makes America the most exceptional nation on earth.

The purpose of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 is to provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility to allocate resources needed to provide technical assistance by U.S. military women to military women in other countries combating violence as a weapon of war, terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking.

Mr. Chair, the United States is committed to combating violent extremism, protecting our borders and the globe from the scourge of terrorism.

The United States Armed Forces possess an unparalleled expertise and technological capability that will aid not only in combating and defeating terrorists who hate our country and prey upon innocent persons, especially women, girls, and the elderly.

But we must recognize that notwithstanding our extraordinary technical military capabilities, we face adversaries who adapt very quickly because they are not constrained by geographic limitations or norms of morality and decency.

Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS/ISIL and other militant terrorists, including the Sinai's Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in the Sinai Peninsula which poses a threat to Egypt.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 helps provide the Department of Defense with the resources needed to provide technical assistance to countries on innovative strategies to provide defense technologies and resources that promote the security of the American people and allied nation states.

Terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking and their impact on women and girls across the globe has had a great adverse impact on us all.

According to a UNICEF report, rape, torture and human trafficking by terrorist and militant groups have been employed as weapons of war, affecting over twenty thousand women and girls.

Looking at the history of terrorism highlights the importance of providing technical assistance through our military might, as this enables us to combat terrorism which now can plague us here in the United States.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 will help curb terrorism abroad by making available American technical military expertise to military in other countries, like Nigeria, who are combating violent jihadists in their country and to keep those terrorists out of our country.

Time and again American lives have been lost at the hands of terrorists.

These victims include Christians, Muslims, journalists, health care providers, relief workers, schoolchildren, and members of the diplomatic corps and the Armed Services.

This is why the technical assistance offered by our military personnel is integral to promoting security operation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft for missions to empower local forces to combat terrorism.

Terrorists across the globe have wreaked havoc on our society and cannot be tolerated or ignored, for their actions pose a threat to our national security and the security of the world.

Mr. Chair, from the United States to Africa to Europe to Asia and the Middle East, it is clear that combating terrorism remains one of our highest national priorities.

Collectively, helping our neighbors and their military build capacity to combat terrorism, eradicate human trafficking, stop narcotics trafficking and negate their impact on women and girls across the globe serves our national interest.

I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted last year to the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2017 (H.R. 5293).

My amendment increases funding for the Defense Health Program's research and development by $10 million.

These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United States military.

The American Cancer Society calls several strains of breast cancer as a particularly aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates; in this instance, it is a triple negative.

But I raise an article: ``Fighting a Different Battle; Breast Cancer and the Military.''

Breast cancer can affect both men and women.

The bad news is breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat.

Let me say that sentence again.

Breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat.

More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011.

And according to that same study, more are suspected. It grows.

The good news is that we have been working on it, and I want to add my appreciation to the military.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 25, however, will allow for the additional research.

That research is particularly needed since women are joining the Armed Services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to leadership.

Within increased age comes increased risk and incidence of breast cancer.

Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at an alarming rate, but male service members, veterans and their dependents are at risk as well.

With a younger and generally healthier population, those in military tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians--including significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast cancer is a different story.

Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer, according to Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston University who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on military breast cancer issues.

Dr. Clapp notes that life in the military can mean exposure to a witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of getting breast cancer.

So, I am asking that we do the right thing.

We are on the right track, we're on the right road.

But with the expansion of women in the military, it is extremely important to move forward with this amendment to help ensure that the men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom can live longer, healthier lives.

I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 25.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased that the En Bloc Amendment also includes Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 that was made in order under the Rule.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 increases funding for the PTSD by $5 million.

These funds should be used toward outreach activities targeting hard to reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Mr. Chair, along with traumatic brain injury, PTSD is the signature wound suffered by the brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.

For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see on a daily basis.

In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face.

Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th birthday.

But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your thoughts and memories.

And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.

PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes.

People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb (especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become violent.

They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult.

Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep.

These are called flashbacks; a person having a flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again.

Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD.

These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety disorders.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human, who live their experiences.

Ask a veteran of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 will help ensure that ``no soldier is left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country.

I thank the Chair and Ranking Member for including Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 in the En Bloc Amendment and urge my colleagues to support the En Bloc Amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 478, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule for consideration of division A of H.R. 3219 and have been agreed to by both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising this issue.

I am supportive of efforts to ensure that the Department of Defense takes

responsibility for any potential contamination issues. That is why this bill provides more than $1 billion for environmental restoration accounts, nearly $48 million more than fiscal year 2017.

The bill includes an increase of $10 million specifically to support water contamination efforts. In addition, the committee provided an additional $57 million for those efforts in the fiscal year 2017 supplemental appropriations.

The committee has already provided a generous amount of funding to address water contamination, and the Department of Defense has assured me that they are addressing each side on a priority basis.

The amendment offered by the gentleman provides additional funding that the Department may not be able to execute, and the funding comes at the expense of the warfighter readiness account. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I share many of the gentleman's concerns, and I appreciate him raising this issue. I support environmental remediation efforts that ensure that drinking water is safe in communities across the Nation. That is why this bill includes $1 billion for environmental restoration.

The amount represents $48 million more than the fiscal year 2017 level and includes $10 million above the request to specifically address PFC contamination. In addition, we include an additional $57 million for drinking water cleanup in the fiscal year 2017 supplemental appropriations.

This committee has included significant funding to address drinking water contamination issues, and I am concerned that the Department will not be able to execute the additional $60 million offered by this amendment; therefore, I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. The amendment proposes to add funding back to the JLTV program, cutting the House defense bill due to a lack of information provided by the Army budget justification.

The cut to the JLTV program reflects the committee's concern with the Army's failure to provide the full budget justification information for an $804 million program. Failure to provide this information makes it impossible for the committee to exercise its fiscal oversight responsibilities.

However, the JLTV program is important to the warfighter and is executing well. I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, the committee has no objection. The amendment's funding for major test facilities is critical to ensuring our military retains its competitive lead over our competitors. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern to provide adequate funding for this very important research, and we have spoken about it. I am a strong supporter of funding for research in this area, and that is why the bill already provides $125 million toward grants for PTSD and traumatic brain injury research, including CTE, which has previously received millions of dollars in research grants under this program.

A previous amendment would create a new research program, focused solely on CTE research. And since CTE research is already eligible under the PTSD-TBI research program, it is much more appropriate to add funding to the PTSD-TBI program, rather than create a new research program. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, these important revisions have been included in several appropriations bills for several years running. They represent a strong and enduring consensus in Congress that Guantanamo should remain open and that detainees should not be transferred to the United States for any reason.

Striking these provisions would have unknown consequences for U.S. communities. It is impossible to know how many detainees might be brought here, where they might be held, and the impacts on communities and facilities holding them. It is also impossible to know what the potential costs could be.

Putting detainees in U.S. prisons, as the administration originally proposed, would be disruptive and, potentially, disastrous. Former FBI Director Mueller has stated: ``To transfer detainees to local jails could affect or infect other prisoners or have the capability of affecting events outside the prison system.''

The idea of bringing detainees for trials in the U.S. quickly collapsed as local jurisdictions voiced their strong opposition.

As everyone here is aware, several detainees who have been released from Guantanamo have gone back to the fight and killed and wounded Americans. The threat is real, and Guantanamo is already equipped to handle the detention and military trial of these individuals, as appropriate.

Any proposal that results in these detainees being sent to the United States, for any reason, is simply the wrong policy.

I, therefore, oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I join Mr. Franks in his remarks, and I urge rejection of this amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman for his valuable contributions to the Defense Subcommittee. I join him in opposition to this amendment that would limit the Defense Department's flexibility to achieve efficiency and save taxpayer dollars.

I urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman proposes an amendment that cuts all funding for the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces in the hostilities in Yemen. U.S. Forces need the flexibility to enter any theater where terrorists target the United States. Just 2 months ago, American Special Operations Forces conducted a ground raid against al- Qaida's Yemen branch, killing seven suspected militants.

We consulted leadership at the Department of Defense regarding this amendment. The Department recommends a more thorough legal review of the implications of this amendment.

Further, the Joint Staff asserts that a U.S. provision of limited support to the Saudi-led coalition might be construed in this context as participation in civil war, in which case, removal of such support could have a damaging effect on the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia and create further implications for regional security.

With Special Operations fighting terrorism around the globe to protect our safety, does Congress want to show its lack of support?

This amendment is poorly timed and overly restrictive and has many unforeseen complications. Therefore, the committee strongly opposes this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Vermont for his amendment and for his thoughtful approach to this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), who is a member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I simply, again, reiterate my support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would point out that the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. The committee worked hard to increase funding for these accounts.

Also, I would point out, representing the First Congressional District of Indiana, I am intimately familiar with the problems these environmental sites have.

There is much to do, many resources we need to look for, and I would support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly join with the chair in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment and share the chair's concern over the issue raised. However, I don't think the approach is an appropriate one in that we would carve out another budget line.

Given my anticipation that we will not have a full 12-month fiscal year for this money to be spent, I am very concerned that we will find enough projects for this money to be spent on. In the meantime, they would then be eliminated from the existing line for other possible research.

Mr. Chairman, I would look to work with the gentlewoman to address this issue in a fulsome fashion, but not in this manner.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the ranking member, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, as it relates to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and would simply make a few brief remarks.

This is, I believe, a very substantive and serious issue facing a constitutional government, our government of laws.

I would point out that it is a sad state of affairs if somewhere in the United States of America we cannot find a secure facility to detain 41 individuals at this late date, given the fact that President Bush released over 500 people from Guantanamo, and President Obama released 197.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by observing that, within the last week, the Attorney General of the United States of America could not find a justification to have an alleged terrorist, who recruits for al- Qaida, having been extradited from Spain, an Algerian, placed in Guantanamo. That person, as I understand it, as I speak at this moment, is being detained in the United States of America. That is what should happen with the other 41 people.

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

Mr. Chair, I just have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chair, I have a question on the procedure. I understand that Mr. Foster is recognized. Did I lose track of an amendment for Mr. Polis?

And Mr. Poe?

I appreciate the information. Sorry for the interruption very much.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I simply would want to rise in support of his amendment. I would point out that in 2010, the Ballistic Missile Defense Review made no request for space-based interceptors. Currently, this is a matter under review by the Department. I think we should allow that review to be concluded before we expend moneys.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding and join her in opposition; although, I must tell you I am always very reserved about opposing an amendment put forth by a Notre Dame graduate.

But, in all seriousness, I would say that I do appreciate the gentleman's concern with the devolving situation in Yemen in that we do not want to get involved in a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I am also in agreement with much of the intent behind the amendment and certainly agree that Congress has relinquished much of its oversight role over Presidential decisions about sending U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities provided under the War Powers Act. That is why I am a strong supporter of efforts to develop a new Authorization for Use of Military Force for the global war on terror. Congress needs to, finally, after 16 years, carry out its constitutional duty and stop hiding from this very important debate that the gentleman has raised in his amendment.

However, I do have concerns that the gentleman's amendment, as written, is overly broad and would place undue restrictions on U.S. Forces within the Middle East to respond to legitimate threats within Yemen.

So, again, very reluctantly, I join with the chairwoman in opposition, and I appreciate her yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly would acknowledge that Iran is up to very nefarious purposes as far as sponsoring terrorism internationally.

I also acknowledge the gentleman referenced the previous administration more than once during his remarks as far as the issue before the House today.

In 2016, last year, heavy water was purchased by the Department of Energy and the State Department, but I would point out this is 2017 with a different administration, and essentially the amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

The current administration has recertified Iran's compliance with the agreement twice. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and is subject to intense scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

But importantly to the point raised today, I would suggest that the Department of Energy consistently has indicated at the time of the 2016 heavy water purchase from Iran that the United States would not be a regular buyer of Iranian heavy water.

Since that purchase, the United States has not purchased any additional heavy water from that country. In fact, the U.S. has, through refraining from purchases of excess supply, forced Iran to ship excess heavy water abroad so that it can continue to adhere to the agreement entered into.

It seems highly unlikely that the current administration would now seek out an opportunity to purchase this heavy water.

Again, I believe the gentleman has a solution to a problem that does not exist, and I am opposed to his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida to the end that the Chair puts the question de novo.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

In last year's election, no campaign rhetoric was more infamous than the President's promise to ``build a great, great wall on our Southern border'' and ``make Mexico pay for it.''

The reality is the funding would come from U.S. taxpayers, not from Mexico, as the President promised. This motion to recommit strikes the $1.6 billion appropriation for construction of nearly 74 miles of border wall.

Beyond the initial 74 miles, we have no idea of how many miles of border wall the President plans to build or how much it will cost because we have not received the required report on the long-term plan and justification for border security investments.

Even with the plan, we will need time to evaluate whether investments in the border wall are more cost effective than alternatives and more urgent than clearly established unmet needs.

With $1.6 billion, we could buy two of the four heavy Coast Guard icebreakers we need to protect U.S. interests in the Arctic. This purchase would help minimize the danger highlighted in a National Academies of Science report, which concluded the Coast Guard requires four new heavy icebreakers to protect U.S interests in the Arctic, where Russia has an ever-increasing presence.

The Coast Guard is ready to solicit proposals for new icebreakers in fiscal year 2018. In this bill there is no funding for essential icebreakers. There is no acquisition funding for them in the Homeland Security bill.

The $1.6 billion could also be used for investments in additional scanning technology in the hiring of thousands of Customs officers at every U.S. port of entry. This would reduce wait times for travelers, better facilitate the flow of commerce, and contribute to economic growth in many of our districts. It would also enhance our ability to intercept contraband and illegal narcotics mostly smuggled directly into the U.S. through our ports of entry, not where the wall would be built.

The bill before us does not adequately address these and other areas of security vulnerabilities.

As Members of Congress, protecting our Nation and the American public is our greatest responsibility. It is our obligation to act in their best interest and to invest their tax dollars wisely. If the only Homeland Security item in this bill remains the funding for 74 miles of border wall, we will fail to meet our obligations.

Unfortunately, the President's border wall is now a proxy for the broader immigration debate. There is a false and misleading assumption that building a border wall will solve the immigration challenges we face. The reality is we will never be able to fix our broken immigration system with an enforcement-only approach that turns a blind eye to the desperate circumstances that compels so many to make the often deadly journey to the U.S.

We will never be able to address our immigration challenges by treating as criminals the millions of undocumented people in this country, many of whom are our neighbors and friends.

For years or even decades, the vast majority have called the U.S. their home. They have paid their taxes, acted responsibly, contributed to their communities, and worked hard to provide opportunity for their family.

Immigration enforcement is as much a moral issue as it is a legal one. Our Statue of Liberty has always been a welcoming symbol of hope for those who, like now, are fleeing poverty, oppression, famine, war, and violence in their home country. Many of our ancestors come from somewhere else, often within certain legal status, and made significant contributions to help our country become the greatest in the world. Today's immigrants continue to contribute to that noble legacy.

What we truly need is comprehensive immigration reform that protects our homeland and reflects our American values. Democrats stand ready to work with Republicans to achieve that goal, but Democrats will not support the use of taxpayer dollars for an ill-conceived border wall that has more to do with a campaign promise than the security of our homeland.

In spite of the President's assurances, Mexico is not paying for this wall. The American taxpayer is. My motion to recommit would prevent that from happening. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018 tasks the Missile Defense Agency with developing a space-based ballistic missile intercept layer.

There is no doubt that a space-based missile defense, if it is technologically feasible and economically justifiable, would make an important contribution to our national security. So would the Star Trek transporter or the warp drive, but as a scientist and, in fact, the only Ph.D. scientist in the U.S. Congress, I think that we need to do our homework before investing hundreds of billions of dollars into attempting to develop this system. As such, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds to attempt to develop a space-based missile intercept layer.

It has been more than 30 years since President Reagan called for defending the United States against a first strike by developing a strategic defense system, commonly known as Star Wars.

The idea of a space-based version of this has gone in and out of fashion for the last 30 years, but every time this space-based concept has been looked at by technologically competent outside experts, it was deemed to be unworkable, impossibly expensive, vulnerable to countermeasures, easy for an opponent to destroy, easy to overwhelm with a small number of enemy missiles, or all of the above. This approach was judged technologically unworkable in

1983, and the status quo has not changed.

In order to reach a ballistic missile during the first few minutes of flight, a large number of interceptors must be stationed in low- altitude orbit. A report conducted by the American Physical Society in 2003 concluded that in order to ensure full coverage, a fleet of 1,000 or more orbiting satellites would be required to intercept just a single missile.

To put that in perspective, the United States currently has slightly more than 600 satellites in Earth orbit, which includes commercial, scientific, and military satellites. Moreover, the amount of launch that is required to put this material into orbit in a reasonable amount of time would greatly exceed the current U.S. launch capability.

The National Academies of Sciences estimated that it would cost at least $300 billion--in 2003 dollars--for just such a limited capability. And just last year, in his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, the former Director of the Missile Defense Authority, Admiral Syring, concluded the same thing.

Setting aside the high cost, a space-based missile defense system has inherent vulnerabilities that greatly limit its effectiveness. Even with thousands of interceptors deployed, only a few would be within range to target an incoming missile, and those could be easily overwhelmed by the launch of several missiles from one location. And because interceptors must be stationed in low-altitude orbit, they are easily detected, tracked, and destroyed.

Finally, there is a more fundamental question that we must ask ourselves. And that is: Is it wise to deploy weapons in space, especially when the required technology is becoming widely available around the world?

Deploying such a system would strain strategic relationships around the globe and almost certainly trigger a space arms race.

There is no doubt that ensuring our Nation's defense and national security are of paramount priority, but spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a system which will not work, without having serious debate and at least some concept for how this might be remotely practical or affordable, is indefensible.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that Ronald Reagan never illuminated the possibility of this to the American public, because the possibility never existed.

What we have today is not a missile defense system. It has failed in the great majority of tests. It has been tested against a very small fraction of the countermeasures that are elementary to deploy against it.

I hope that no one involved in the missile defense system is telling President Trump that we have an effective antimissile system today, because if he gambles counting on any defense from that system, he is putting our country at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining amount of my time to the ranking member.