Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Alabama, I appreciate the fact that he wants to defend what I think is indefensible, this process that the Republicans have implemented to run this House. I would be embarrassed to, but I know he has a job to do, and that is what he is doing.

He talks about all of these amendments that were made in order. What he doesn't tell you about is the over 2,000 amendments that they have blocked this session already, including a lot of Republican amendments that have been blocked, as well.

It is always puzzling to me that the Republicans just kind of go along to get along, and they get shut out of the amendment process and they still vote for a rule. Maybe the day that they stop voting for these rules is a day that maybe we will see some changes.

I also want to point out, and I don't think he really appreciates this point and this is why this has become the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America, that the majority of bills that have been brought to the floor are unamendable. They are totally closed. I can't even offer an amendment to put a punctuation mark in a bill. I can't change a comma. I can't change the spelling of a word.

The majority of bills have been totally closed, shut out to everybody. If that is the process that this majority wants to embrace, fine. I think that is the kind of process that we want to move away from because that is the kind of process that we see in authoritarian regimes, not in deliberative bodies like the United States Congress, not in the United States of America.

The gentleman talks about that he trusts the administration on Afghanistan. Well, I don't trust this President on anything, to be honest with you. I don't know if he has ever been to Afghanistan, but I have, and the troops that I talked to in Afghanistan and those who are returning ask me the same thing over and over, and that is: What the hell are we doing? What is our mission?

Now, if you think the mission is on target and everything is great, fine. Then vote to increase the number of troops there. But we ought to have a debate here on the floor on whether that is the right thing to do.

On AUMFs, I am happy that the gentleman is cosponsoring a number of AUMFs. He says it is not appropriate to talk about it here in a defense authorization bill or a Defense Appropriations bill; that is a Foreign Affairs Committee bill, and we ought to deal with it there.

When is the last time we have had a Foreign Affairs Committee bill that has been brought before us that we could amend to do an AUMF on? I don't know.

Maybe the gentleman may know when this AUMF is coming out of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I haven't seen it. I have been waiting for years. They are in charge. They run this place. They control everything.

So that is just another excuse, and it really is insulting to the men and women who put their lives on the line for this country. I mean, there is always an excuse why we can't debate something.

This has to stop, and I hope it stops soon. If not, maybe the elections will result in a change of leadership here. I hope that, if we have the privilege to take over, you see a much more accommodating process and, certainly, a process where important issues like this get to be debated.

Mr. Speaker, the protests by thousands of teachers across the Nation have exposed not just low wages, but also severely dilapidated facilities. The 2016 State of Our Schools report determined that there is an annual State and local spending gap of $46 billion on school facilities. These facilities pose significant health and safety threats to more than 50 million students.

In the richest country in the world, it is absolutely shameful that we allow our children to attend schools without heat and with dangerous mold, not to mention the thousands of schools lacking access to the connectivity necessary for digital learning.

For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Education and the Workforce Committee member Bobby Scott's bill, H.R. 2475, the Rebuild America's Schools Act. This legislation would provide the necessary funding to address critical physical and digital infrastructure needs in our schools, creating over 1.9 million jobs in the process.

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, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my Rules Committee colleague that I agree with her that this place is pretty dysfunctional. But I just want to point out, in case she has forgotten, that the White House is controlled by Republicans, the House is controlled by Republicans, and the Senate is controlled by Republicans. So the gentlewoman can blame everybody she wants, but the Republicans are in charge of everything.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to respond to Mr. Byrne.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a May 22 letter signed by 32 former Republican and Democratic defense and foreign policy officials rejecting the building and use of low-yield nuclear warheads and opposing their authorization and their funding.

May 22, 2018.

Hon. Jim McGovern,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative McGovern: We write to respectfully

request that Congress reject the Trump administration's

request for new, more usable, ``low-yield'' nuclear warheads

for Trident missiles. There is no need for such weapons and

building them would make the United States less safe. These

so-called ``low-yield'' weapons are a gateway to nuclear

catastrophe and should not be pursued.

To justify this dangerous proposal, the Trump

administration is promoting a false narrative that the United

States has a ``gap'' in its ability to deter the use of

nuclear weapons by Russia. Officials allege that Moscow

believes that an American president would not respond to

Russian use of ``tactical,'' or lower yield, nuclear weapons

if his only options include ``strategic,'' or high-yield,

ones. The president, they argue, would be ``self-deterred.''

To plug this supposed ``deterrence gap,'' the Trump

administration wants to develop and deploy new low-yield

nuclear warheads on Trident II D5 missiles on Ohio-class

submarines. The administration is asking Congress for $88

million in FY2019 for this new warhead, in a program that

would be completed in that fiscal year under the aegis of the

W76 Life Extension Program. Yet this justification for new

Trident warheads fails on many levels:

1. There is no ``deterrence gap.'' The United States has a

massive nuclear arsenal of some 4,000 warheads, half of which

are deployed on land-based missiles, submarines, and bombers.

The administration is in the process of rebuilding this

arsenal at an estimated cost of $1.7 trillion, with

inflation, over the next 30 years. While this immense program

is excessive, adds to a new arms race with Russia, and should

be scaled back, Russia cannot doubt that the United States is

serious about maintaining an unambiguously strong nuclear

deterrent.

2. The United States already has many low-yield nuclear

weapons. As part of that massive arsenal, the United States

already has about 1,000 nuclear weapons with low-yield

options, which are being modernized at great expense. If the

president ever needed to use a low-yield nuclear weapon, he

has many options.

3. Nuclear war cannot be controlled. Perhaps the biggest

fallacy in the whole argument is the mistaken and dangerous

belief that a ``small'' nuclear war would remain small. There

is no basis for the dubious theory that, if Russia used a

``low-yield'' nuclear weapon and the United States responded

in kind, the conflict could stay at that level.

Indeed, it is unlikely that there is such a thing as a

limited nuclear war; preparing for one is folly. As George

Shultz, Secretary of State for President Ronald Reagan,

recently noted, ``A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. You

use a small one, then you go to a bigger one. I think nuclear

weapons are nuclear weapons and we need to draw the line

there.'' Secretary of Defense James Mattis similarly

declared, ``I don't think there's any such thing as a

tactical nuclear weapon. Any

nuclear weapon used at any time is a strategic game

changer.''

Ultimately, the greatest concern about the proposed low-

yield Trident warhead is that the president might feel less

restrained about using it in a crisis. When it comes to using

a nuclear weapon, restraint is a good thing. The proposed

``low-yield'' Trident warhead is dangerous, unjustified, and

redundant. Congress has the power to stop the administration

from starting down this slippery slope to nuclear war. We

call on Congress to exercise that authority without delay.

Sincerely,

The Hon. George P. Shultz, Former U.S. Secretary of State;

The Hon. William J. Perry, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense;

The Hon. Richard G. Lugar, United States Senator (Ret.),

Former Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee; The Hon.

Byron Dorgan, United States Senator (Ret.), Former Chairman,

Energy & Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee,

Senate Appropriations Committee; The Hon. Gary Hart, United

States Senator (Ret.), Former member, Senate Armed Services

Committee; The Hon. Mark Udall, United States Senator (Ret.),

Former member, Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Hon. Jerry Brown, Former Governor of California; The

Hon. Barney Frank, U.S. House of Representatives (Ret.); The

Hon. John Tierney, U.S. House of Representatives (Ret.),

Former Chairman, House Subcommittee on National Security and

Foreign Affairs, Government Oversight and Reform Committee;

General James Cartwright (USMC, Ret.), Former Vice Chair,

Joint Chiefs of Staff; Lt. General Robert G. Gard (USA,

Ret.), Former President, National Defense University; The

Hon. John Holdren, Former Chief Science Advisor to the

President; The Hon. Thomas Countryman, Former Assistant

Secretary of State for International Security and

Nonproliferation.

The Hon. Andrew Weber, Former Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense

Programs; The Hon. Thomas Graham Jr., Former Special

Representative of the President for Arms Control, Non-

proliferation and Disarmament; The Hon. Susan F. Burk, Former

Special Representative of the President, Nuclear

Nonproliferation; The Hon. Laura Kennedy, Former US Permanent

Representative to the Conference on Disarmament; The Hon.

Steven Pifer, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and

Ambassador to Ukraine; The Hon. Anne M. Harrington, Former

Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,

U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security

Administration.

Ben Chang, Former Director for Press & Communications and

Deputy Spokesman at the National Security Council; Philip E.

Coyle, Former Associate Director for National Security and

International Affairs, White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy; Steve Fetter, Former Principal Assistant

Director for National Security and International Affairs,

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Colin

Kahl, Former Deputy Assistant to the President and National

Security Advisor to the Vice President; Richard Nephew,

Former Director for Iran for the National Security Council;

Ned Price, Former Special Assistant to President Obama and

Spokesperson for the National Security Council.

Ben Rhodes, Former Deputy National Security Advisor for

Strategic Communications, The White House; Frank von Hippel,

Former Assistant Director for National Security, White House

Office of Science and Technology Policy; Jon Wolfsthal,

Former Special Assistant to the President for National

Security and Senior Director for Nonproliferation and Arms

Control at the National Security Council; Alexandra Bell,

Former Director of Strategic Outreach in the Office of the

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International

Security; Bishop Garrison, Former adviser and Executive

Director, Homeland Security Science & Technology Advisory

Committee; Morton Halperin, Former Director of the Policy

Planning Staff, Department of State; Newell Highsmith, Former

Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State.

This letter is co-led by former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz and former Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry.

Mr. Speaker, as the letter states, ``there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war and preparing for one is folly.''

George Shultz, Secretary of State for President Ronald Reagan, recently noted: ``A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. You use a small one, then you go to a bigger one.''

Secretary of Defense James Mattis also recently declared: ``I don't think there's any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used at any time is a strategic game changer.''

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill, for all of its many positive developments, is seriously deficient in this particular area. It authorizes funding for new low-yield nuclear weapons.

The U.S. already possesses low-yield nuclear weapons. If these weapons are not effective deterrents, we should examine why before building and deploying a new generation of weapons.

We should listen to our seasoned elder statesmen and -women and stop walking down a road that begins a nuclear war that can rapidly escalate. Any use of a nuclear weapon is a catastrophe. We should be destroying nuclear weapons, not building new ones.

I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together and make sure this funding is not included in the final version of the

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

I would say to the gentleman that we already have low-yield nuclear weapons. I don't know why we need more.

We heard the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), talk about the amendment he would like to see made in order to help reinforce our schools. I think most people watching also appreciate the fact that our national defense includes things like the quality of life for people here in this country, including the quality of our schools, whether people have jobs, whether people have good healthcare.

We are shortchanging all these domestic investments, and I think the concern we have is when you start investing in more nuclear weapons, not only is it not a good use of our taxpayer dollars, but it also increases insecurity for the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. Let me repeat that. This is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

The majority is very proud of this rule. They have made a bunch of amendments in order on a handful of bills to run up their numbers, but let's remember one thing: On most bills, the majority of the legislation that comes to this floor, they do not allow a single amendment. Not one. On most bills that come to the floor, no Member of this House, Democratic or Republican, can offer an amendment.

This rule before us today is not closed, but let me highlight a few germane amendments from the 281 amendments that this rule blocks.

Several bipartisan amendments were blocked, such as an amendment by Representatives Denham, Foster, Curbelo, and Panetta which allows Dreamers who grew up in the United States to gain legal status, provided that they serve out the terms of their enlistment honorably.

So we are talking about rewarding people who served in our military. That was the amendment. That was brought before the Rules Committee. That was blocked.

There was another bipartisan amendment from 25 Members, including myself, that expresses the sense of Congress that the lessons of past genocides should be applied to help prevent future war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

I say to my colleagues: When did a sense of Congress on the atrocities of genocide become such a controversial topic? But that was blocked.

This rule blocks an amendment by Representative Keating to test ticks for an increased number of tick-borne diseases. When did fighting tick- borne diseases become too sensitive for the House to debate?

This rule, once again, blocks us from having one of the most important debates we could have. It prevents us

from debating whether or not to send our sons and daughters into harm's way.

The bipartisan amendment by Representatives Lee, Jones, and Ellison would repeal the 2001 AUMF after 240 days of enactment of the act, giving Congress ample time to debate a new AUMF.

The Constitution of the United States says the Congress has the power to declare war. This is our job, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama saying: Well, the Foreign Affairs Committee deals with that, not us. We hear that every year. Every year that goes by, we don't see any bill from the Foreign Affairs Committee dealing with these topics.

The bottom line, let's be honest, is we don't deal with it because Members in the majority don't want to deal with this difficult issue. I have always said that our failure to act on an AUMF, our failure to debate these issues, represents moral cowardice.

What about our workers? Representatives Ellison, Pocan, and Grijalva had an amendment blocked that would have prohibited Federal contracts with companies that have repeated and willful wage theft violations. Why would we knowingly reward companies that hurt our workers?

The list goes on:

An amendment by Representative Lieu to require a public report on all DOD expenditures to support Presidential visits to entities owned or significantly controlled by the President or a member of his immediate family.

The American people deserve to know if the President and his family are directly profiting off of this Presidency. Blocked. Blocked.

An amendment by Representative Veasey that would prohibit the deportation of family members of servicemembers on Active Duty. How can we, with a good conscience, deport the family members of brave young men and women putting their lives on the line for all of us and fighting for our safety everyday? Blocked.

An amendment by Representative Torres, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, that would have prevented DOD in helping the Department of Homeland Security from deporting spouses, parents, and sons and daughters of certain military personnel, veterans, and enlistees.

Mr. Speaker, I could spend the rest of the week describing the thousands of amendments that this Republican leadership has blocked, but I would much prefer to be debating the ideas that Members from both parties have put forward in good faith.

This is the most closed Congress in history. Dana Milbank recently described it as the most authoritarian Congress in history.

You know, 180 Democratic Members have had an amendment blocked in this Congress alone. That is 180 elected Members.

I would like my Republican friends to listen closely to my next point. This Congress, 180 Republican Members have also had their amendments blocked this Congress. You are all voting to block your own ideas. Stop it. Read the rules that you are voting on.

The vast majority of Republican Members have had their proposals blocked from even getting a vote. I don't understand why you keep voting to block proposals that you supposedly believe in. Hundreds of Republican amendments have been blocked by the Rules Committee. Most Republicans voted to block them. They are your amendments. I don't understand why it is such a radical idea to debate any of the amendments I just spoke about. We can do so much better.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of amendments that have been made in order. There is a lot of quantity. But a lot of the amendments that really shine in quality and that are important in terms of substance have been blocked. This is nothing new.

Again, the majority of bills that come to this floor are under closed rules. You can't amend them. Nobody can. Take it or leave it. The majority of bills that come to this floor are closed.

I know it is uncomfortable for my Republican friends to hear that they have presided over this closed process, but my hope is they will be so embarrassed and so ashamed that they will want to change things. They can still redeem themselves. We are only in May. They have a long way to go. Whether it is on the defense bill, on an education bill, or whatever bill it is, there are good ideas that are being brought forward.

I will close with this. I met with a group of young students who were engaged in the nationwide protest asking Congress to do something on gun violence. And the most frustrating thing they said to them is the fact that when they were lobbying Members of Congress, it's not even about telling them how to vote on an issue; they are frustrated because you can't get a vote on any of the issues that are related to gun violence. We won't let anything come to the floor. It is wrong.

I just say to my friends, in closing, if this place becomes more accommodating, if the Speaker decides to live up to the words that he enunciated when he became Speaker of the House, to have a more open process, to respect all ideas, let me tell you something; you are going to see a decrease in polarization. You are going to see more bills passed a bipartisan way. You are going to see more good bills going forward. Legislation will be better. If you have a lousy process, you end up with a lousy bill.

Again, I respect all the time and energy that went into crafting this NDAA. I respect the chairman and the ranking member, Democrats and Republicans alike, but there are a lot of important amendments here that are being blocked that are really important and that most of our constituents would believe deserve a debate and a vote on this floor.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule. And I plead with them, let's bring some accomodation and some respect to differing ideas and just regular order to this House, because this is certainly not what I think any of us could possibly believe is the way our government should be run.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 908 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 908 provides for complete consideration of H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

The rule makes in order 168 amendments to go along with the previous 103 amendments made in order by yesterday's rule.

That means the full House will consider 271 amendments to this year's NDAA. When you add in the 317 amendments considered in the Armed Services Committee, that means a total of 588 amendments to the NDAA will be considered this year.

Mr. Speaker, for this year's NDAA, a record number of amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee.

I want to thank both the majority and the minority Rules Committee staff, our Rules associates, and the staff of the Armed Services Committee for the many hours they put into this open and deliberative process.

As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee, I have spent my fair share of time working on this piece of legislation.

Like years past, I want to again highlight the bipartisan nature of our work. This year's NDAA passed out of the Armed Services Committee on a bipartisan 60-1 vote.

That bipartisanship will continue here on the floor, where 176 of the amendments made in order are minority or bipartisan amendments.

The theme of this year's NDAA is to reform and rebuild our Nation's military. The bill supports an increase in top-line funding for the military, as we continue working to reverse the readiness crisis we faced for at least the last decade.

Any organization, including the military, is only as good as its people, and this NDAA authorizes a 2.6 percent pay raise for our troops, the largest increase in 9 years. This will help us retain and recruit the best and the brightest.

The bill also calls for increases in the size of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Naval and Air Reserves, as well as the Air Guard.

As vice chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, I am pleased the bill authorizes construction of 13 new Navy ships. This is a much-needed step, as we continue building towards a 355-ship Navy.

I am especially proud that this year's NDAA includes many provisions important to my home State of Alabama. From Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville to the Anniston Army Depot to Fort Rucker in the Wiregrass to Maxwell-Gunter in Montgomery to the Austal Shipyard in Mobile, this bill ensures that Alabama will continue playing a leading role in supplying, training, and supporting our Nation's military.

Sadly, we have lost far too many servicemembers to training accidents over the last year. The bill ensures improvements to military training and safety programs to help protect our servicemen and -women.

These efforts include repairing outdated equipment and ensuring the procurement of new first-class capabilities. This includes additional Stryker A1 combat vehicles, Army armored brigade combat team vehicles, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, C-130 Super Hercules aircraft, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters, and advanced missiles.

The bill continues to build on Chairman Thornberry's priority of reforming the Pentagon bureaucracy to make it more efficient and effective. This includes streamlining buying practices.

From Russia to Iran to China to North Korea, the bill makes investments to ensure we are keeping up with our adversaries. The United States must stand ready to confront aggression around the globe, whether it is from major state actors or rogue terrorist organizations.

Importantly, this year's NDAA includes much-needed investment in our nuclear deterrent and authorizations for the Missile Defense Agency.

It authorizes funding for codevelopment and coproduction of missile defense and weapons systems with our key ally, Israel.

All told, I am confident that this bill includes the reforms and funding levels necessary to rebuild and empower the greatest fighting force in the world.

With this NDAA, we can hopefully continue to embody the strategy of peace through strength and support our servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, if you ever need a pick-me-up or a shot in the arm, I encourage you to spend some time visiting with our servicemen and - women. These individuals come from all different walks of life and backgrounds. They all play different roles and have different jobs, but they are united by the common goal of defending and protecting the United States of America.

I distinctly remember a conversation I had with a group of sailors from my home State of Alabama aboard the USS John C. Stennis a few years ago.

After hearing about their various paths that led them to the Navy, I asked what I could do for them. One response was straightforward, but very poignant. She asked me to make sure the American people knew what they did and that we supported them.

That is exactly what we do with this bill. We bring together Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, from different parts of the country, and we unite behind the common goal of supporting the men and women in uniform who protect the United States of America.

With this bill, we can send a clear message to our sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines that the United States Congress has their back, that we are committed to the mission, and we will ensure that they have the right policies and the right resources to get the job done.

This bill also sends a message to our friends and our adversaries that America is back, and that while we prefer peace, we will not hesitate to do what is necessary to defend our country and protect our interests.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 908, and for the 58th year in a row, let's pass a bipartisan

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

Let's compare the records of the Republicans and the Democrats and who has the most open Congress.

As of May 23 of this year, Republicans in this Congress have provided for consideration of over 1,130 amendments on the House floor. Over 520 of those, or 46 percent, were Democratic amendments; 430, or 38 percent, were Republican; and 170, or 16 percent, were bipartisan. In the 114th Congress, the GOP majority allowed over 1,700 amendments. In the 113th Congress, the GOP majority allowed over 1,500 amendments.

In the entire 111th Congress, when the Democrats were in control, Speaker Pelosi, the Democrats, allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the floor.

Who is more open? Democrats have highlighted the number of amendments not made in order in this Congress. However, in the 111th Congress when

they controlled, their majority blocked nearly 3,000 amendments, with roughly 2,400 of those occurring in the very first sessions.

Unlike our Democratic colleagues who shut the doors and refused to accept the late amendments from Members, Chairman Sessions of the Rules Committee has made it a point to ensure that every single Member has the opportunity to submit their amendments and come to the committee to share their thoughts and concerns, oftentimes late at night.

Under this model of transparency and openness, the committee has spent countless hours listening and considering Member testimony. In fact, we have welcomed over 225 Members to testify at this Congress roughly 493 times and made in order over 1,130 amendments, including 521 from the Democrats, as I said. So I am glad to compare our record of openness with theirs.

Let's talk about the escalation in Afghanistan. There is a clear AUMF that authorizes what we are doing in Afghanistan. Under that AUMF, the military doesn't have to come back to the Congress to say: Pretty please, can we put more soldiers into that country?

I trust General Mattis. He knows what he is doing. He has a clear, legal authorization to do it, and I don't think it makes any sense for him to have to come back to us.

On the issue of the AUMF, which I know we will have more debate on during this rule debate, let me say one thing and say it clearly: I have cosponsored at least two AUMF bills, and those are in the Foreign Affairs Committee, not in the Armed Services Committee. We don't have jurisdiction over that. I wish we did. In fact, I have cosponsored a bill with a Democratic colleague to put jurisdiction in the Armed Services Committee so we can get something done. So I would dearly love for the Foreign Affairs Committee to come forward with a bill, and I am happy to work with the gentleman to see that that takes place.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), the newest member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia's comments. He is the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee in the House. I have the privilege of serving with him on that committee.

I spent 8 years on the Alabama State Board of Education, 5 years in the Alabama State senate serving on both of

our education committees, and 2 years as chancellor of postsecondary education for the State of Alabama. I care deeply about education. I know what it can do to better the lives of everybody in America.

I find many of the comments the gentleman made with regard to this bill very interesting, and I hope there will be a time when we can take those up and consider them, but this is not that time. We are here today to talk about the defense of the United States of America.

So, with all respect to the gentleman's comments, I hope that he and I can sit down with others later and talk about that, particularly what is the role of the Federal Government versus what is the role of State and local governments. But today let's talk about the defense of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the gentlewoman's comments, and she probably is unaware of the fact that we are presently undergoing for the first time in the history of the Department of Defense a full Department-wide audit. We are already getting some of the things that they have determined from that audit back. That audit is going to give us information we need to make some further changes in the management performance of the Pentagon. She probably didn't know we are already underway with that, but that is going to be completed in early fall of this year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), who is my colleague from both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill authorizes what it authorizes with regard to these smaller nuclear weapons because we find our adversaries developing such nuclear weapons.

We are not developing them because we want to use them. We want to develop them because the mere fact that we have got them, we believe, is a deterrent to our adversaries using the very same weapons they have in their arsenal themselves.

So we are simply making sure that we don't have one hand tied behind our back if we get into one of these types of conflicts.

I understand what the gentleman is saying. No one ever wants to use a nuclear weapon. But to see your adversary have such a weapon and do nothing is not what we should do to defend the people of the United States.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that some of our Democratic colleagues--not all of them--would like for us today to be talking about a Federal takeover of local education. Some of my Democratic colleagues--not all of them-- would like to talk about doing away with the Second Amendment. But that is not what we are about today. We are talking about the defense of the United States of America.

Remember where we were 2 years ago, at the end of the Obama administration. ISIS still controlled vast swaths of western Iraq and eastern Syria. Iran had just gotten its hands on tens of billions of dollars that had been frozen--money that they were able to get because of the deal that President Obama cut with them. We now know that they have taken that money and increased defense spending, military spending, in Iran by 40 percent.

Two years ago, we had cut troop levels down to levels we haven't seen in decades. In fact, we cut the Air Force to the point it had never been since the founding of the Air Force. Our fleet had been cut down to less than 280 ships after it had been to at least 400 under the Clinton administration. Fifty percent of the Navy's jets couldn't fly. Our adversaries didn't fear us and our friends and allies didn't know if they could count on us.

We have begun to turn that around. ISIS is largely gone from Iraq. It is largely gone from Syria. It is obliterated as a conventional force after becoming a conventional terrorist army that controlled a big chunk of the Middle East. Gone. Slipped over into North Africa. We understand that. So we have to continue what we are doing to fight against them in those places. And, yes, we need an AUMF to do that.

We have also done something that is very important in rebuilding our military. We have told our men and women that we value them by giving them pay increases. This bill calls for another pay increase on top of the one we gave them last year. They have gone too long without real pay increases.

We are beginning to give them the equipment they need to do the missions that we have them to do. More ships, more jets, more ammunition, more missiles, more missile defense. We are going to make sure that our jets can fly.

Most importantly, we want to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the training, preparation,

and support they need so we don't have another year that goes by where we have more of our men and women in uniform who lose their lives in training exercises than they do in combat.

We are turning that around. We are leaving the sorry legacy of the Obama administration so that we can put in place a defense strategy for this country that will defend our country and, at the same time, protect the safety of our men and women in uniform. So that is what we are here today to talk about.

I believe that we will vote on this bill, the underlying bill, in a bipartisan fashion because, going back to the Kennedy administration, that is what we have done year after year after year. That is the message that we send to our foes, to our friends abroad, and, yes, to those men and women in uniform: that we come together, this Congress comes together, to make sure that we do what we are supposed to do in our job to defend this country.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 908 and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to join the House Armed Services Committee in time to participate in the review and markup of the fiscal year 2019 national defense authorization bill. I am pleased to participate in the investments this bill makes in our national defense.

I would agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: They are not a cheap date. In fact, some of the amendments that my colleague mentioned were debated in committee and were defeated in committee. Apparently, we want to go through them multiple times; and unless they get everything they want, somehow they are going to protest. At some point in time, the process is what it is. The amendment is lost.

I am pleased to participate in investments in defense, and in particular, the Stryker combat vehicle, a program that has a tremendous impact on combat readiness and capability of our Army.

The Stryker brigade combat teams are some of the most frequently deployed units in the Army, and it exponentially increases the protection and lethality of our Nation's soldiers.

The most modern version of the vehicle, the Stryker A1, includes a double-v hull that has already proven to protect soldiers from the most violent IED and mine blasts, as well as other upgrades to improve their mobility and communication capabilities.

I am pleased with the House Armed Services Committee for seeing the wisdom of authorizing a total $360 million for the Stryker upgrades this fiscal year. That effort supports Army Chief of Staff General Milley's plan to provide Stryker A1s to all brigade combat teams by 2025.

I look forward to working with the chairman and over 250 Members of my House colleagues--across the aisle, by the way--who join me in a letter supporting the Stryker program and its continued efforts of development.

Our soldiers who so often are deployed in harm's way deserve every protection they can get, and we should provide that for them.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the Secretary of the Army, Mark Esper.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 12, 2018.

Dear Secretary Esper: Thank you for your service to our

nation and your robust efforts to increase the readiness and

modernization budget of the U.S. Army. While you may have

just begun, you are making remarkable progress on behalf of

the American soldier and our national security.

However, we would like to bring to your attention the

continued budgetary challenges of the Stryker combat vehicle

program. The Stryker vehicle is the Army's most deployed and

versatile combat vehicle and represents what may be the most

successful Army acquisition program in recent memory from

initial acquisition to the most recent upgrades. Yet there

appears to be a disconnect between these facts and the Army's

FY19 budget request which once again neglects much needed

Stryker procurement and modernization.

In recent years, Congress has stepped in and ensured that

the Army's lack of budgetary commitment to Stryker did not

prevent our soldiers in the field from receiving the safety

and lethality upgrades necessary against the threats of

today's global environment. Congress has strongly supported

both the conversion of flat bottomed Strykers to the more

survivable Double-V Hull (DVH) Stryker A1 version and the

Stryker lethality (ICV) upgrade which adds a powerful 30mm

cannon to the Stryker infantry variant.

While we are pleased that the Army's FY 19 modernization

budget was increased by more than 14% from FY 18, we are

perplexed why the Stryker program did not seem to benefit

from this growth in investment funding, especially since it

is our understanding that the Army has an operational

requirement for additional brigades of improved Stryker (DVH)

A1s. How can the Stryker fleet represent 30% of Army combat

vehicles yet receive just 6% of the Army's combat vehicle

budget in FY 19?

Congress has continually demonstrated our long-standing

support for Stryker production and we request that you do the

same by working with us in the FY19 defense budget process to

develop a plan to sustain the Stryker program.

Sincerely,

Mike Rogers, David P. Joyce, Marcy Kaptur, Sander M. Levin,

Richard Hudson, Paul Mitchell, Debbie Dingell, Lou Barletta,

Tom Graves, Vern Buchanan, Andre Carson, Collin C. Peterson,

Pete Sessions, Harry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Peter Roskam,

Patrick Meehan, Walter Jones, Stephen Palazzo, Bill Shuster,

Tom Marino, Joyce Beatty, Alan Lowenthal, Bradley Byrne, Mimi

Walters, Robert Pittenger, Robert B. Aderholt, Eric Swalwell,

Will Hurd, James B. Renacci, Gary Palmer.

Michael T. McCaul, Jim Jordan, Charles W. Dent, David E.

Price, Brian Mast, Henry Cuellar, Vicki Hartzler, Adam

Kinzinger, Scott DesJarlais, Don Young, Emanuel Cleaver, II,

Rob Wittman, Gerald E. Connolly, Patrick McHenry, Bruce

Westerman, Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Ted Budd, Josh Gottheimer,

Barbara Comstock, Ted W. Lieu, Elise M. Stefanik, A. Donald

McEachin, Peter T. King, Martha Roby.

Robert A. Brady, Paul Gosar, Mike Simpson, John Carter,

Terri Sewell, Bill Huizenga, David B. McKinley, PE, Betty

McCollum, Peter Welch, Sean P. Duffy, Marcia Fudge, Leonard

Lance, Thomas J. Rooney, Ann McLane Kuster, Tom O'Halloran,

Francis Rooney, John R. Moolenaar, Alma S. Adams, John H.

Rutherford, Michael Doyle, Jody Hice, Ryan A. Costello,

Charlie Crist, Denny Heck.

Mark E. Amodei, Ann Wagner, Rick W. Allen, Ralph Abraham,

MD, Ted S. Yoho, DVM, Tom MacArthur, (duplicate signature),

Mike Gallagher, Steve Stivers, Sean Patrick Maloney, Kevin

Brady, George Holding, Scott Peters, Sam Graves, Keith J.

Rothfus, Paul Cook, Nanette Diaz Barragan, Darin LaHood, Doug

Collins, Don Bacon, Carol Shea-Porter, Bonnie Watson Coleman,

Juan Vargas, Norma J. Torres, Kyrsten Sinema, David G.

Valadao, Rodney Davis, Dwight Evans, Jim Langevin, Ken

Calvert, Chellie Pingree.

Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Michael D. Bishop, Colleen

Hanabusa, Tom Garrett, Brian Fitzpatrick, Martha McSally,

Warren Davidson, Devin Nunes, Steve Knight, Matthew

Cartwright, Cheri Bustos, Chris Collins, Tim Ryan, Scott

Perry, Karen C. Handel, French Hill, Carlos Curbelo, Joe

Wilson, Anthony G. Brown, Derek Kilmer, Grace F. Napolitano,

John Faso, Andy Biggs, Trent Kelly, Mark Walker, Marc Veasey,

Jim Himes, James P. McGovern, G.K. Butterfield, Ileana Ros-

Lehtinen, Virginia Foxx.

David Rouzer, Cedric L. Richmond, Jackie Walorski, Jim

Banks, Lloyd Smucker, Matt Gaetz, Larry Bucshon, MD, Julia

Brownley, Mark Meadows, A. Drew Ferguson, IV, DMD, Jamie

Herrera Beutler, Donald Beyer, Brendan F. Boyle, Brenda L.

Lawrence, Ruben Gallego, Grace Meng, Seth Moulton, Mike Bost,

Kathleen M. Rice, Dave Loebsack, Evan H. Jenkins, John M.

Katko, Bill Johnson, Dave Trott, Donald Norcross, Michael

Capuano, Pete Aguilar, Barry Loudermilk, John Culbertson,

Fred Upton, H. Morgan Griffith.

Mario Diaz-Balart, Jack Bergman, Pramila Jayapal, Richard

E. Neal, David Scott, Chris Stewart, John K. Delaney, Darren

Soto, Al Lawson, Bruce Poliquin, Debbie Wasserman Schultz,

Gregory W. Meeks, Alcee L. Hastings, Steve Chabot, Kenny

Marchant, Sanford Bishop, Austin Scott, Frank LoBiondo,

Duncan Hunter, John Garamendi, Suzan K. DelBene, Bob Gibbs,

Bill Long, Tom Cole, Chuck Fleischmann, Rick Crawford, Pete

Olson, Susan W. Brooks.

Dennis Ross, Scott Taylor, Mike Johnson, Salud Carbajal,

Dan Kildee, Rob Woodall, Mark Pocon, Tulsi Gabbard, Roger

Williams, Stephanie Murphy, Dave Reichert, Jeff Duncan,

Christopher H. Smith, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Sam Johnson, Steve

Womack, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Kurt Schrader, Tim Walberg,

Todd Rokita, Robert E. Latta, Mike Coffman, Mike Quigley, Mo

Brooks, Kevin Yoder, Tom Rice, Rick Larsen.

Neal Dunn, MD, Tom Emmer, Stacey Plaskett, Tom Suozzi, Erik

Paulsen, Mike Kelly, Andy Barr, Zoe Lofgren, Dan Newhouse,

Bobby Scott, Jeff Fortenberry, Daniel Lipinski, Adam B.

Schiff, Bob Goodlatte, Ed Royce, Hal Rogers, Brad Wenstrup,

K. Michael Conaway, Tom Reed, Bill Flores, Ted Deutch, Ron

Estes, Paul Tonko, Doug Lamborn, Randy Hultgren, Albio Sires,

David Schweikert.

Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for July 2018. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018, H. Con. Res. 71, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA18). This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act (CBA).

This is the fifth scorekeeping report this year and the second since I filed new enforceable levels on May 7, pursuant to BBA18 requirements. My last filing can be found in the Congressional Record for June 6, 2018. The information included in this report is current through July 16, 2018.

Republican Budget Committee staff prepared Tables 1-6.

Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution and the fiscal year 2019 enforceable levels filing. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 10 of the 16 authorizing committees are in compliance with their allocations.

During this reporting period, Congress cleared two pieces of legislation with significant budgetary effects scored to authorizing committees. The first bill was H.R. 770, the American Innovation $1 Coin Act. This measure requires the Secretary of the Treasury to mint, beginning in 2019, new $1 coins ``in recognition of American innovation and significant innovation and pioneering efforts of individuals or groups from each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories.'' CBO estimates that H.R. 770 would increase direct spending in the near term by $3 million but would be deficit- neutral over the entire budget window. This bill was charged to the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. The second bill was H.R. 5956, the Northern Mariana Islands U.S. Workforce Act of 2018. This bill modifies U.S. immigration policy regarding the Northern Mariana Islands, thereby reducing the number of people able to claim asylum and receive means-tested benefits. CBO estimates that this bill would save $3 million over the budget window. H.R. 5956 was charged to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Tables 2-6 remain unchanged from my last filing.

In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by Congress.

Because legislation can still be enacted that would have an effect on fiscal year 2018, CBO has provided a report both for fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019. This information is used to enforce aggregate spending and revenue levels in the budget resolution under section 311 of the CBA. CBO's estimates show that current-law levels of spending for fiscal year 2018 exceed the amounts in H. Con. Res. 71 by $157.4 billion in budget authority and $106.3 billion in outlays. Revenues are $3.2 billion above the revenue floor for fiscal year 2018 set by the budget resolution. Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed by the resolution, while Social Security revenues are $446 million below the levels in the budget.

For fiscal year 2019, CBO estimates that current-law levels are below the fiscal year 2019 enforceable aggregates by $1,142.2 billion in budget authority and $646.1 billion in outlays. The allowable spending room will be reduced as appropriations bills are enacted. Revenues are $5 million below the level assumed for fiscal year 2019. Finally, Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in the fiscal year 2019 enforcement filing.

CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. After accounting for enacted legislation during this reporting period, the PAYGO scorecard shows deficit increases in fiscal year 2019 of $25 million--$5 million revenue loss, $20 million outlay increase--over the fiscal year 2019-2023 period of $332 million--$47 million revenue loss, $285 million outlay increase-- and over the fiscal year 2019-2028 period of $487 million--$108 million revenue loss, $379 million outlay increase. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71.

Included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the May 7 enforcement filing. On June 18, 2018, Senator Bernard Sanders raised a Senate PAYGO point of order against H.R. 5515, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. That point of order was waived by a vote of 81-14. H.R. 5515 has yet to be enacted and is currently in conference.

All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Byrne, for his tremendous work on this issue on the Rules Committee as well as on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the bipartisan

work of the House Armed Services Committee that has gone into crafting the underlying bill. This year's NDAA authorizes programs that are absolutely crucial, Mr. Speaker, to the defense of this Nation.

The bill authorizes funding at levels that will begin to restore our readiness, replacing aging equipment and weapons, and developing the next generation of military technology.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would clearly like to divert attention from these issues. They would like to try to discuss everything under the sun, it seems, except funding for our men and women in uniform who are on the front lines defending the freedom that allows us to have the debate that we are having today in this very Chamber.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that, without the funding authorized in this bill, our adversaries will continue to close capability gaps and further erode our military superiority.

Mr. Speaker, while passage of this rule and the underlying NDAA are vital, our work will not be done. We must appropriate the funds authorized here, and we must finally, Mr. Speaker, repeal the Budget Control Act.

For the last decade, this body has routinely forced the Department of Defense to operate under continuing resolutions. In plain English, this means we are asking our men and women in uniform to stay on their posts and put their lives on the line to defend all of us while at the same time depriving them of the resources they need to do that job.

The situation, Mr. Speaker, was exacerbated in 2011 with the arbitrary budget caps and sequestration of the Budget Control Act. This has devastated military readiness and enabled our adversaries to make significant gains that threaten our security and our military superiority.

In testimony earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Mattis described the severity of the situation and congressional responsibility for the situation this way: ``As hard as the last 16 years of war have been, no enemy in the field has done as much to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined impact of the Budget Control Act's defense spending caps, worsened by operating for 10 of the last 11 years under continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration.''

In a world in which we face the most complex and severe threat environment we have faced since the end of World War II, this situation is simply shameful. The men and women who put their lives on the line for all of us are sick and tired--as my colleague said, that is absolutely true--but they are sick and tired, Mr. Speaker, of being held hostage to a range of Democratic pet programs and politics that are often played by those on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber.

Year after year, Mr. Speaker, we have completed our work in this body on the Defense Appropriations bill, and we have done it on time. Unfortunately, the same is not true of our colleagues in the Senate. Rules over in the Senate have allowed Democrats in that body to hold critical funding for our military hostage in an effort to advance unrelated issues.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle join me in the belief that no member of our military--no mother or father or wife or husband or child of any servicemember--should have to continue to pay the price for the dysfunction of the United States Congress' budget process.

I fully expect that this House will complete our work, once again, Mr. Speaker, to fund our military in a timely manner this year. I call on my colleagues, the Democrats in this body and in the Senate, to join us in fulfilling our most important constitutional obligation. We must avoid another continuing resolution for the Department of Defense, and we must pass the funding authorized under this bill required to provide for the common defense.

The first step in that overall process is the work we are doing here this week. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule so we can complete our work on the underlying bill. I urge passage of the NDAA, and I urge my colleagues to join us in putting the resources in place our troops need, to stop holding our troops hostage, and to work with us to break the cycle of continuing resolutions that have only served to undermine military readiness.