To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize additional emergency uses for medical products to reduce deaths and severity of injuries caused by agents of war, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 616 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 may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 616 provides for consideration of H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, and the conference report to accompany H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years, introduces great private market competition, and provides additional reforms to benefit policyholders and taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget has said that the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, is not fiscally sustainable in its current form. The 21st Century Flood Reform Act helps transition it to a more sustainable program.

Importantly, the bill will help foster a robust product market for flood insurance, which allows private insurers to compete, in turn, driving down the price of policies while creating greater consumer choice. This is a win for policyholders and taxpayers alike.

Representing Alabama's Gulf Coast, it is important to me and my constituents that they have access to affordable flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program or a private insurer.

I appreciate the inclusion of provisions in the 21st Century Flood Reform Act to protect current policyholders while making the program sustainable.

I also appreciate Chairman Hensarling's willingness to work with Members whose constituents, such as mine, rely very heavily upon the NFIP to address concerns we raised about the initial version of the bill that passed out of committee.

All in all, this bill is a positive step toward reauthorizing our Nation's flood insurance program, which is currently set to expire on December 8. We must take action to ensure coastal homeowners and others in flood-prone areas have access to affordable insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to get a long-term reauthorization across the finish line and signed into law by President Trump.

House Resolution 616 also allows for consideration of the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act that was conferenced between the House and the Senate, reconciling the differences between two different versions.

Mr. Speaker, before I go into the substance of the bill, I would like to take a minute to commend the open and regular order process that has taken place from start to finish.

As a member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Rules Committee, I have followed this bill throughout the legislative process and think we should all be proud of the regular order and the fact that a wide range of members played a role in crafting the final product.

I applaud Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and the entire Armed Services Committee staff for their dedication to an open process. I also appreciate the countless hours they have poured into this conference report.

Just as a quick reminder, we considered 275 amendments during the House Armed Services Committee back in June, and another 210 amendments when the NDAA was considered by the full House in July. In total, 485 amendments have been considered in the House, and, just as important, there was a clear bipartisan split between the number of majority and minority amendments.

The conference committee continued this bipartisan and collaborative process under the leadership of four chairmen and ranking members. Once again, this year's NDAA is truly a bipartisan and bicameral bill that provides the best for our military and national security.

Mr. Speaker, this NDAA follows through on our promise to our servicemen and -women and our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense of the United States of America.

The FY18 NDAA conference report authorizes a 10 percent increase in total military spending, reminiscent of the Reagan era defense buildup. The bill authorizes $626 billion for base budget requirements, $66 billion for overseas contingency operations, and $8 billion for other defense activities.

That adds up for a total national defense top line of $700 billion.

I am incredibly proud to support a top-line number high enough to begin reversing the readiness crisis that has endangered the lives of our servicemembers and made it harder to defend our country.

Over the past 8 years, and under sequestration, our military has suffered. We have planes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, and soldiers who can't deploy, all while the number of threats around the world keep rising.

I want to acknowledge that this top-line number is significantly higher than the Budget Control Act cap for defense. I look forward to continued dialogue with the Appropriations Committee to raise this cap that has crippled necessary defense spending in recent years.

Every day we operate under a continuing resolution or the BCA caps is another day we are failing our men and women in uniform. The FY18 NDAA fulfills the authorization side of the equation, and I am hopeful the appropriations side will follow.

The FY18 NDAA increases the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Army Guard and Reserve, Naval and Air Reserve, and Air Guard to repair and restore readiness.

The bill also authorizes construction of 13 new Navy ships, including three littoral combat ships, as we work to grow toward a 355-ship fleet.

In a well-deserved benefit for our troops, the NDAA provides for a 2.4 percent pay increase for servicemembers, which is the amount our troops are entitled to under current law.

Another small but important provision in this bill eliminates the so- called widow's tax, which requires surviving spouses of servicemembers killed in action to forfeit the survivor benefit pension annuity. The financial burden of this tax is something our military families should not bear.

The bill also continues to advance Chairman Thornberry's priority of reforming and strengthening the military's acquisition process to make it more effective and efficient.

Importantly, the legislation takes into account the Trump administration's $6 billion budget amendment to authorize more funding for missile defense threats against North Korea, Navy ship repairs, and more troops in Afghanistan.

Our men and women in uniform all over the world are on a mission to protect and defend the freedoms we hold dear. The way I see it, our mission in Congress is to give these brave men and women the resources they need to succeed. The FY18 NDAA does exactly that and is another step in a multiyear process of restoring our military strength to further protect our national security. Ultimately, this bill is about keeping the American people safe and secure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 616 and both of the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the sponsor of H.R. 2874.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I just would point out to the gentleman that the Democrats have highlighted the number of amendments not made in order during the first session of the 115th Congress; however, in the 111th Congress, their majority blocked nearly 3,000 amendments, with roughly 2,400 of those occurring in the first session. So, far be it from the case that Republicans have blocked an inordinate number of amendments. We blocked far less amendments than our Democratic colleagues did when they were in control of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), who is my fellow colleague on the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Wyoming an additional 30 seconds

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), a very happy Auburn Tigers fan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I represent a coastal area of Alabama, and flood insurance is extremely important to many of my constituents. It is very important to me to fulfill my job on their behalf to make sure that we have a Flood Insurance Program that is there for many years to come. But we know that it is actuarially insolvent. So we have to make changes in the program.

As the gentleman from Oregon said, change is hard and reforms are hard.

But the gentleman from Florida and, before him, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the sponsor of the bill, made very good points. The reforms we are making in this bill for the Flood Insurance Program will allow it to be successful for years to come and also protect the taxpayers of America. I think we have a responsibility to do that.

The other bill under this rule, the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act, represents a very important inflection point.

We are now moving to repair the damage we have done to our military these last several years. This is a 10 percent increase for our military so that we can help them rebuild their readiness and the equipment they need to defend us with this ever-increasing matrix of threats, not the least of which is North Korea. We put even more money in this authorization to defend against a missile attack from North Korea.

We are at the beginning of something historic here with this bill, and that is rebuilding the United States military, much like it was done 30-plus years ago when President Reagan was in office.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 616 and the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4374) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize additional emergency uses for medical products to reduce deaths and severity of injuries caused by agents of war, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the Senate Committee on Armed Services from the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb.

U.S. Food & Drug Administration,

Silver Spring, MD, November 14, 2017.

Senator John McCain,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.

Senator Jack Reed,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed: Thank you for

your commitment to our Nation's service members and for your

leadership in enhancing the Food and Drug Administration's

(FDA) medical countermeasure authorities and collaborations

with the Department of Defense (DoD). FDA shares your goal of

protecting our Nation's military service men and women by

advancing safe and effective medical products, strengthening

our partnerships with the DoD on behalf of our Nation's

warfighters, and ensuring that this critical work is

prioritized by the Agency.

Our Nation's troops face unique risks on the battlefield,

and my colleagues and I at the Agency are committed to

implementing a lasting framework that not only considers

these unique risks, but prioritizes the warfighters' needs by

expediting the development and review of medical

countermeasures needed in the face of emerging threats. The

bipartisan bill that will be considered alongside the

National Defense Authorization Act of 2018 would codify these

commitments to ensure that the warfighters' needs for safe

and effective medical countermeasures are met on a priority

basis and in strong partnerships with DoD.

For instance, I believe this new authority and enhanced

collaborations with DoD will help enable FDA to approve

freeze dried plasma as soon as 2018, addressing a key medical

priority. Further, it will put in place a permanent process

for strong engagement between FDA and DoD on any future

medical products DoD determines are necessary to address

military emergencies. Additionally, under these provisions,

FDA would be able to recognize military threats in advance

and provide an emergency use authorization for a fuller range

of medical products that could help save lives on the

battlefield.

Thank you again for your dedication to our Nation's service

members and for working with FDA on this meaningful framework

to better serve and protect our warfighters. Please be

assured that I am personally committed to this effort. I will

make it one of my highest priorities as Commissioner to

rapidly implement the framework that is called for under this

legislation and work with my colleagues at FDA and DoD to

create an enduring pathway for the efficient development and

prioritization of products intended to help save the lives of

military personnel on the battlefield. Please do not hesitate

to reach out to me as we implement these new authorities.

Sincerely,

Scott Gottlieb, M.D.,

Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform have put their lives on the line for this country, and they deserve to have the earliest possible access to medical products that could save their lives on the battlefield.

H.R. 4374 will establish important new authorities for the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, and the Department of Defense, DOD, to ensure that our warfighters have the benefits of new treatments and new devices.

Mr. Speaker, currently the FDA has the authority to authorize the emergency use of an unapproved medical product for a specific set of military emergencies. They have that authority. This emergency use authority requires two things, though. First, the Secretary of Defense must make a determination that there is a risk of attack on military forces with a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agent. Next, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must make a declaration that there is, in fact, an emergency or threat justifying the emergency use authorization of a product.

To ensure there are no unnecessary delays in this process, this legislation, H.R. 4374, establishes a deadline for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Once the Secretary of Defense

makes a declaration of an imminent risk of attack, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has 45 days--that is the maximum--to make a declaration that such a risk exists.

Limiting the threat under which an emergency use can be authorized to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents, frankly, has been too narrow to incorporate all the serious threats of harm to our troops.

To address this problem, H.R. 4374 establishes a new category under which the emergency use authorization process can be triggered. H.R. 4374 expands this authority to include situations where the Secretary of Defense makes a determination that there is risk of attack with any agent that may cause an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to the United States military forces.

In addition to creating new pathways for emergency access to unapproved medical devices, H.R. 4374 also creates a new breakthrough designation to expedite actual FDA approval of medical products for military emergencies.

Currently, the breakthrough pathway exists only for products intended to treat serious, life-threatening conditions where the Secretary determines such a product may demonstrate significant improvement over existing therapies.

Mr. Speaker, this expedited approval is based on the successful breakthrough designation created by Congress back in 2012. This has worked. It has accelerated oncology drug reviews by more than 2 years.

Now, in short, H.R. 4374 addresses the critical issue of military access to the newest available products by expanding the circumstances under which emergency use authorizations can be issued and by establishing an expedited pathway to full approval of products that the Secretary of Defense requests.

Mr. Speaker, policies in this bill are bipartisan. They were developed with the input from the administration as well as the authorizing committees in the House and the Senate. Additionally, CBO has indicated that H.R. 4374 will have no impact on direct spending or revenue. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not only a good bill, it is an important bill for our men and women in uniform, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4374.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New Jersey as we work on this together.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), chairman of our Subcommittee on Environment and a veteran himself.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who I believe is also a West Point graduate. We appreciate his counsel, and I concur.

I appreciate working with the House Armed Services Committee and its very able chairman, my friend, Mac Thornberry.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, a doctor himself and a veteran.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), a great public servant who has served our Nation, I think, in two different uniforms and is a terrific member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a terrific member of our Conference and of the Armed Services Committee, again, a practitioner of medicine, a saver of wounded people, including our own whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard from my colleagues the importance of this legislation. We found a good balance with our friends in the Armed Services Committee and in working with the FDA and with the leadership of the Pentagon to get this right. What matters most to Americans is that we take care of our warriors on the field when they are injured, and when they are in harm's way that we are doing the best possible thing we can for them.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2810, the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, takes important steps towards strengthening our national security and supporting our troops.

The conference report authorizes a total of $692 billion in discretionary budget authority, $26 billion more than the administration requested.

I am pleased that it raises military pay by 2.4 percent, an increase from the President's request of 2.1 percent.

It also strengthens our efforts to counter Russia's campaign to undermine our democracy by fully funding cybersecurity and cyberspace operations at $8 billion and it drops harmful restrictions on funding the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty extension between the United States and Russia. This treaty continues a bipartisan tradition that began under President Reagan, verifiably reducing both countries' nuclear arsenals.

Mr. Speaker, there is one glaring problem with this measure, and that is that the Budget Control Act imposes a $549 billion cap on defense spending for fiscal year 2018. This bill blows past that by more than $143 billion. Unless the Senate, the House, and the President come to an agreement on lifting or modifying the budget caps, there is no way that these spending levels can become law. So far, that agreement is not in the offing and it is past time for a bipartisan compromise on realistic spending levels for defense and nondefense spending alike.

While I am glad to see this pay increase for our troops, this legislation does not exist in a vacuum. Later this week, the Republicans plan to bring to the floor a disastrous tax bill that would force military families and veterans to finance tax cuts for corporations and the superwealthy. The bill repeals tax credits that help veterans find employment. It makes education more expensive for veterans and undermines the GI Bill. It makes it more expensive for military families to sell their homes. It eliminates tax relief for veterans suffering from chronic illnesses.

Veterans Day was just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, and it is no way for the majority to thank them for their service.

Also before us today is H.R. 2874, which is known as the 21st Century Flood Reform Act. Now, everybody in this Chamber recognizes the National Flood Insurance Program is badly in debt, to the tune of $25 billion. The hurricanes this year, together with the flooding across Louisiana last year, have stretched the program beyond its breaking point.

Unfortunately, this package will cause more harm than good for the communities already struggling to rebuild. It will make flood insurance more expensive for families by increasing premiums.

It also exempts businesses from the requirement to purchase flood insurance even though the vast majority of policyholders with this insurance only purchase it because they are required to by law. This change would take effect beginning in January 2019.

The Independent Community Bankers and a number of other groups oppose this provision. As businesses pull out of the insurance market and the number of participating dwindles, responsible businesses that stay in the market will be forced to bear the burden of greatly increased premiums. I think these are shortsighted changes that will be felt all across the insurance market.

Additionally, the legislation doesn't do enough to update the often out-of-date flood insurance rate maps being used in communities across the country and in my district. Accurate flood insurance maps prepared with the most recent mapping technologies would help constituents in all of our districts better prepare and protect themselves against flooding. Some current maps are so outdated that the maps don't reflect changing landscapes and critical flood mitigation improvements. This bill simply falls short in helping homeowners who want to do the right thing based off the best available information.

We are in the wake of some of the worst hurricanes our Nation has ever experienced, and more of them. We are seeing how vital, affordable, and readily available flood insurance is to so many communities. It is unconscionable that the majority is moving forward with this partisan package of bills, unlikely to ever pass the Senate, because this will only further delay the extension of the program with 1 month left before it expires.

As the majority lurches from crisis to crisis and fritters away precious legislative time with this partisan approach, we will likely find ourselves right back here doing this over again in December.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds because I was very impressed, yesterday, with Mr. Graves and the thoughtful work that he had done. I am sorry his amendments were not made in order, but I appreciate very much his homework on this bill, and I agree with him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act isn't perfect. Most notably, it blows past the caps implemented under the Budget Control Act. But there are areas of common ground in this bill, including a pay raise for our military and investments to fill the genuine readiness gaps in our Armed Forces.

I want to point out that they are the result of something that is all too often nonexistent under the majority, and that is regular order. I agree with what my colleague said, to see a bill under regular order is a downright joy. I hope we do more of it.

A hearing and a markup were held for this bill and colleagues from both sides of the aisle were consulted. That is how the Chamber was designed to function, but, today, it hardly functions like that at all.

It is a shame that we don't also see the majority put this model to use for other major legislation like healthcare and tax reform, which we will be rushing through to get to tomorrow.

This is a process that we didn't see for the other measure before us today, which is H.R. 2874. No hearing was ever held on the package in its entirety. It was changed right up until it was considered by the Rules Committee earlier this week in an effort not to get Democrat support, but to get enough support from Members of the majority so that it could pass on a party-line vote.

That is what we see under this leadership: no hearings and rarely any markups.

Legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would impact one-sixth of our economy, was passed without so much as a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office outlining its impacts and its costs.

This Congress has broken the record for the use of closed rules, which prevents any amendments from being offered by either side on the House floor. It is now the most closed Congress ever.

In fact, one of the rules before us right now is closed. We are even likely to consider the majority's bipartisan tax plan this week-- actually, tomorrow--which would increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion, yet under another closed rule and without scoring.

The United States Congress has been called the greatest deliberative body in the world. I think it is time the majority change course and actually allow the great debates about the issues that we face. The legislation we consider would certainly be better for it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding.

First, I want to make a comment about how this process has gone in coming up with this compromise with the amendment on the flood insurance package. We have worked in the Financial Services Committee with outside groups, whether it was the home builders or the realtors or the insurance industry. We have worked with Members of Congress from the Gulf States and

from the East Coast and from the West Coast. We worked with Democrats. We had a number meetings with the ranking member of the committee, all taking in their consideration, which has brought us to a compromise that I don't know that anybody loves, but everyone says is a pretty darn good bill that strives to make needed reforms in a program that hasn't been working well. When we have programs that don't work well, let's try to fix them.

We have a program that, as was just mentioned, is $25 billion in debt, but that doesn't include the $16 billion we just gave the program and forgave. So really, it is $41 billion in debt.

So when do we think through the policies of a program that continues to run deficits, number one, but, number two, continues to incentivize people to live in harm's way?

I was down in Houston and I got to see a family who was talking about their next-door neighbor whose house was burning down. He was telling the story about his neighbor, and as the house started on fire, he sent the kids outside--like you would because your house is burning--as the flood waters are rising. The dad went to go put out the fire, and as he was putting out the fire, he looked out the window and saw his kids were being swept away by a flood. The current was too strong, so he ran outside to save his kids and let his house burn.

What are we going to do in that neighborhood that had been flooded three times in the last 10 years?

We are going to rebuild houses in the same flood plain. This doesn't make sense. Let's think about a reform that is going to improve the program, that helps people get out of dangerous areas and get into better areas that don't flood. Having a flooding house isn't a pleasant place to live.

Not only that, first responders risk their lives to go save people, and they die. We are incentivizing through this policy to allow people to live in these dangerous areas. I don't have a lot of time left, but the reforms are going to, yes, gently increase some of the premiums for the most highly subsidized properties called the pre-FIRM properties. We offer over $1 billion in mitigation to help families flood-proof their home or get out of their home and go to a better place to live because this improves the solvency of flood insurance. We are helping them with mitigation.

We are helping them with mapping, allowing communities that haven't been mapped to actually map themselves, to pay for it, to take care of their own future and destiny instead of waiting for the Federal Government. We allow for a private market to come in and offer you a premium that might be lower than the Federal Government.

God forbid we offer a family a choice to let the private sector compete with a public offering. My God, if you get a lower price, that is great. If you don't get a lower price, you can stay in the Federal plan.

My goodness, I am going to have some people come up in a second and say: But you could cherry-pick, and that could jeopardize the solvency of the program.

The program is insolvent. It is $25 billion in debt--actually, $41 billion, if you include that $16 billion. It is not a solvent program.

Just think if in Houston and in Florida we had people who had bought insurance in the private market, we would be saving taxpayers money. This is a commonsense bill that makes the program better, that helps families, that empowers communities. Let's stand together. A little bit of reform might go a long way in making government actually work, so I would encourage all of my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote ``yes'' for common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague, Mr. Byrne, for his hard work, both on the Armed Services Committee and on the Rules Committee, on this important rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule that will allow for consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

Mr. Speaker, as elected Members of this body, we have no higher obligation or responsibility than to provide for the support and the defense of our Nation. No matter what else we do in this body--and we debate very big, important issues. We debate tax cuts, we debate healthcare, and these are crucial issues, but none of those issues matters if we fail to get the resources necessary to defend this Nation from our adversaries.

For far too long, Mr. Speaker, we have failed to do that. Over the last 8 years, we have seen policies that have failed to provide the kind of resources our Defense Department needs. We have also seen, Mr. Speaker, legislation from this body--in particular, the Budget Control Act--that has caused significant damage to the military.

We have heard on the Armed Services Committee, week after week, briefings from every layer of the military--from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, from the Secretary of Defense, and from the combatant commanders--briefings about the extent to which there is a gap that is growing between our abilities and the abilities of our adversaries. Now, this is a gap that people seem to want to ignore, Mr. Speaker, but we do so at our own peril.

I think that we need, as Members of this body, to think very carefully about what we are going to say to our children and our grandchildren one day if they say to us: Why didn't you do all you could to ensure for the defense of this Nation? Why didn't you do all you could when you were in a position to provide the resources?

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we don't do all we can is because we enable the Senate rules. We have gotten ourselves in a situation, through the Budget Control Act and through the way that we do budgeting in this House, where we enable the dysfunction of the United States Senate, and we let the United States Senate be in a position where, in fact, they prevent us from doing what we know is right from a policy perspective.

I am very proud of this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because what this does, in a bipartisan fashion, is begin to fix that. It begins to remedy the situation. It begins to allow our military to get out from under the burden, the hole that they have been in for the last 8 years.

Funds authorized in this NDAA will ensure that we are able, for example, to modernize our strategic forces. It will also ensure, Mr. Speaker, that we are able to begin to provide funding for the kind of missile defense that we know we need in a situation in which our adversaries have gained tremendous ground.

Mr. Speaker, when we have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs come before the committee and tell us in public session that, if we continue on the path we are on, within 5 years we will not be able to project our power, every Member of this body needs to stop everything else they are doing and listen to that warning. If we can't project our power, then we cannot defend this Nation.

There are many Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, on both sides, who like to quote a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that the debt is the biggest national security threat we face. That is only half of his quote. The second half of his quote was that the debt is the most significant threat we face because it prevents us from being able to resource our military.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today to stand in support of this rule and to stand in support of the National Defense Authorization Act and the important progress that it allows us to begin to make to rebuild our military and undo the damage of the last 8 years.