Condemning the violence against peaceful protesters outside the Turkish Ambassador's residence on May 16, 2017, and calling for the perpetrators to be brought to justice and measures to be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I thank the chairman, first of all, for his hard work on this bill, and all the members of the committee and the staff. As the chairman has pointed out, this is a bill that we have passed for 55 straight years. It is a long and complicated bill that essentially sets the defense and national security policy for our country, and there is a lot of good work that has gone into this bill.

Again, I thank the members for doing that. They recognize the complex threat environment that the chairman correctly described, and we are attempting to address it as best we can in this very difficult environment.

I think the thing that is most difficult that I really want to emphasize is what the chairman said in the middle of his remarks: that over the past 6 years we have had one government shutdown, a number of continuing resolutions, several threatened government shutdowns, and the unpredictability that that has presented to the Defense Department.

Now, to be clear, it has also presented a fair amount--the same amount of unpredictability to the nondefense discretionary budget that also has to deal with those challenges. But that uncertainty about our budget has made it very difficult to plan, and nowhere is that more important than at the Department of Defense.

As they try to lay out a strategy for national security, not knowing from one month to the next how much money you are going to have or what you are going to be able to spend it on is a huge problem. I will say a little bit more about this later, because as big a problem as that is, we haven't solved it.

As we debate this bill here today, we do not have a budget resolution from either the House or the Senate. This is a problem we still need to work on. However much money we wind up spending on defense, if we had a cohesive plan and a clear idea of how much money we were going to have over the next few years, it would be a lot easier to plan for those contingencies.

Again, I do want to compliment the work that has been done on this bill. Particularly, I focus a lot on unconventional threats. I think that is the changing nature of the world. I used to chair what is now called the Emerging Threats Committee. I want to thank Congresswoman Stefanik and Ranking Member Langevin for their work and focusing on cyber, focusing on supporting our special operation forces that have borne so much of the brunt of the fight that we face in countering terrorism.

I also want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Cooper for their work on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, focusing on space, in particular, on the importance of emphasizing that. For a long time, our country dominated space. We didn't have to worry about it. But now a lot of other countries are catching up and competing with us. I think this bill reflects the importance of that.

So there are a lot of very solid things in this bill, but I want to close by emphasizing two significant problems that we still need to address.

One I mentioned already. We don't have a budget resolution. This bill has $621 billion in it, as I understand it, in the base bill, and another, I believe, $75 billion in the overseas contingency fund. We are spending nearly $700 billion in this bill on defense. That is a lot of money, and the chairman mentioned a lot of the very necessary programs that it is going towards. However, that breaks the budget caps.

In order to break the budget caps, the House and the Senate have to vote to break the budget caps. It is July. We haven't done that. I will emphasize that in the Senate it actually requires 60 votes to break the budget caps.

So as much as I see the need in defense, given the complex threat environment out there, it is very possible that $72 billion of what is in this bill is going to disappear between now and the end of this year unless we address the broader issue of sequestration and budget caps.

I will also emphasize that addressing that issue by gutting funding for the nondefense discretionary budget and plussing up defense is not going to work for a couple of reasons.

Number one, a lot of the national security needs that we have come out of some of those other items. The proposal to cut the State Department by 31 percent in a time when we face the complex threat environment that was described is ridiculous. In fact, I will quote Chairman Mattis as well, who said:

If you are going to cut the State Department by 30 percent,

you better give me five more divisions because I am going to

need them. We are not going to be able to resolve conflicts

in a peaceful way.

And also, of course, we have domestic needs that are very important as well. We are still waiting on the infrastructure package from the administration.

There are a lot of needs that are not being met, and we are not yet voting to bust the budget caps. Here we have a bill that does that, but this House has to step up and take that vote if this defense authorizing bill is going to go forward.

The second and final point, we still don't have a national security strategy from the White House. Now, we have a very complex threat environment, as I have said more often than I meant to during the course of the last few minutes--we do. We have got Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, a variety of terrorist threats. What we have heard in our committee for the last 6 months is a series of people from the Pentagon coming over and saying the house is on fire. We don't have enough money to do--fill in the blank. There are a whole lot of different things.

What we haven't heard is a strategy, and the most disturbing conversation I had in that regard was with someone from the Office of Net Assessment.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

He explained to me that we laid out a strategy in 2012 and said we do not have the money to fund that strategy right now. So I asked him: Well, how short are you? How much more money do you need?

He looked at me like he didn't understand what I was asking, so I sort of explained it. The short answer: he didn't know.

How could he not know? I mean, if you can sit there confidently and say, ``My gosh, we don't have enough money; we are way crazy short of our 2012 strategy'' and you still can't say how short, then you don't have a strategy. We need a strategy to make sure this money is spent wisely.

I will close with a compliment of the chairman for something that he has done. We should also not assume that simply spending more money at the Department of Defense is necessarily going to make us safer. We have to make sure we spend it efficiently and effectively. I think this bill has a lot of very solid efforts to try to make us do that, towards acquisition reform, towards spending the money more wisely.

It is not just a matter of spending more money. We have got to spend it smarter, and we have got to confront the lack of a strategy, and we have got to confront the fact that we still have not resolved our budget resolution problem.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

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

Mr. Chair, what I really want to focus on is the budget problem, because that is really underlying all of this.

We have heard a lot of good speeches from Members talking about what is in this bill, how important it is, how what is in this bill is attempting both to meet our national security threats and, as importantly, to make sure that we take care of the men and women who serve our military, who fight to protect us to make sure, first of all, that they and their families are taken care of from a financial standpoint, but also to make sure they have the equipment and training they need to be ready to fight the fights that we ask them to go to. I think that is one of the great challenges.

Whatever it is we decide ought to be our national security strategy, I think the thing we all agree on is we need to make sure we provide the training, equipment, and support so that the men and women who serve in the military are ready for that fight.

The worst thing we can do is create a hollow force and set up an expectation that: You need to do all of this, but we are only going to train you for that. So if this other stuff comes up, you are not going to be ready.

We have talked about this a lot in our committee to make sure that we are ready for the fight that comes. And that is where the budget creates a very significant problem.

We have talked a lot about the Budget Control Act and sequestration. It is pretty clear why we had the Budget Control Act and sequestration. I was here for it. We were days away from not raising the debt ceiling and basically not meeting our commitments to pay our bills. There are those who figure that that can be a significant problem.

So we made an agreement. We were going to try to get the budget under control. Sequestration was put in place, with the expectation that it wouldn't be implemented because we would come to a grand bargain on revenue and spending that would get our deficit under control. Well, we didn't, and sequestration kicked in.

But as we sit here today, even if we got rid of sequestration, even if we got rid of the budget caps, we are still $20 trillion in debt. We are going to run a $700 billion deficit. This is projected to go nowhere but up in the years ahead. I don't believe that is sustainable.

Now, I don't think we need to balance the budget tomorrow or next year or even in the next 5 years, but we need to get ourselves on a sustainable path. And we flat refuse to do that.

You don't see a lot of campaigns promising to cut specific programs or promising to raise taxes. I love the fact that if you poll the American people, there is a very clear consensus on what they think we ought to do about this problem.

First of all, somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 percent of them support a balanced budget now, by the way. Not 5, 10 years, but right now.

You ask them: Well, here are all the places where the government spends money. What would you like to cut?

The answer to that question is: nothing. Literally nothing.

The Pew Research folks do a poll on this every year, and in every single category a majority of people would rather keep the money the same or increase it, as opposed to decrease it.

Of course, if you ask them what taxes they would like to increase, by and large, they don't want to increase taxes. It is interesting. If you can convince people that the taxes in question will not apply to them, for a brief moment they will be supportive of it. But then someone will come along and convince them that at some point it might apply to them, and then they oppose it.

So our task as Members of Congress is to balance the budget without raising taxes or cutting spending. That, of course, is impossible. So what we have chosen to do is put off that decision for as long as is humanly possible.

That is why we do not have a budget resolution. Any budget resolution this body could create would fail on probably multiple fronts of what the public expects. It wouldn't balance the budget. It would cut spending they didn't want to cut. It probably wouldn't raise taxes, coming from this majority, but if it did, it wouldn't be popular. So we have to start having an honest conversation about the budget.

We hear in the Armed Services Committee all the time about all the needs, all the shortfalls, all the critical things we need to do. We argue about it and argue about it, but in 6 years the Republican majority has not put forward a plan to control mandatory spending. They say that is the problem. No plan to do that. Certainly, they haven't even considered the possibility of increasing revenue.

If we are this serious--and we should be--about making sure that we have the funds necessary to provide an adequate national security, then we should stop cowering from the budget debate.

Personally, I am all for raising taxes because I see the needs that the chairman and everybody else has described, and I am actually prepared to pay for them. So we need to do that. That overarching budget problem is what has put us in this mess.

As we talk about this bill, as I said, it is $72 billion over the budget caps. Unless we get a vote to lift those budget caps--which I just mentioned is politically unpopular, which is why we haven't done it for the full 6 months we have been in session this year--then that $72 billion goes away and the Pentagon is back in chaos.

So this may be a good bill. It may be solid. It doesn't have the backing of the budget.

Let me finally suggest that there are some things that the Department of Defense could do. This is why the strategy is so important.

Yes, the Obama administration waited until May of 2010. They didn't have 6 years of CRs and government shutdowns and threatened shutdowns and the changing threat environment that we have. They had a reasonably consistent set of problems. It was a set of problems, but they had the same Secretary of Defense from the previous administration. They had time to look at that.

We need this strategy urgently because the big question is: Are we spending the money correctly? Is the Department of Defense spending the money in the right way? Do we have a strategy to figure out how we should prioritize?

We don't. With this crushing budget environment, it is absolutely critical that we do. We need to consider the possibility, for instance, that we might be spending some money that we shouldn't be spending.

I will often ask that question of the generals who come over and tell us how short they are of everything. I say: Well, where are we spending money, in your opinion, that we shouldn't be?

They never answer the question. You cannot tell me in a $700 billion budget in a place as large as the Pentagon that there isn't somebody over there who knows to say: Look, we shouldn't be doing this.

Just to give one suggestion, we have had the BRAC debate forever. We have had a shrinking military, yet we have maintained the same infrastructure. We have seen study after study from the Air Force and others about how much excess capacity they have and money that could be saved from doing that. But again this year, for, I submit, political reasons, BRAC is prohibited.

So we need to get a lot smarter about how we are going to spend this money and a lot smarter about our budget if this bill is actually going to become reality.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chair, I am not going to take that much time. I agree with the chairman. This is uncontroversial and should be adopted.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing political about a domestic agenda, and this isn't conditional on additional money being spent. In fact, the chairman has got it exactly flip-flop.

The money that we are providing for the armed services at this point, the extra money, is conditioned on cutting it from everything else. As we saw in President Trump's budget, $54 billion-plus up for defense and $54 billion taken away from the domestic agenda.

And it is beyond insulting to say that if you support any sort of domestic spending, you don't care about the troops. That being concerned about transportation and infrastructure, which, by the way, bridges have collapsed and killed people in this country because of the problems with our transportation and infrastructure.

The Department of Homeland Security is part of nondefense discretionary spending. Does it not protect us? We have heard from the President it does.

The State Department is also part of nondefense discretionary spending, where we have heard from the Secretary of Defense that it saves lives.

So for our committee--the Armed Services Committee to say, ``We are all that matters, to hell with everything else; and if you care at all about transportation or domestic agenda, you don't care about the troops,'' that is what is an incredibly disingenuous argument.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make two quick points, first to the point Mr. Blumenauer made about how we are planning on recapitalizing our entire nuclear arsenal.

Now, we have had a robust debate about how much that is going to cost over 10, 25, 30 years. I have some sympathy for the argument that Mr. Rogers made. It is going to be very difficult to estimate how much it is going to cost over 25 or 30 years.

But I do know that if we are talking about recapitalizing our entire nuclear arsenal, all of the submarines, all of the ICBMs, a new bomber, it is going to cost a lot. I don't know if it is $1.2 trillion or $2 trillion. Whatever it is, it is going to be enormously expensive.

At a time when we face a multiplicity of threats from Russia, North Korea, and where missile defense is critical, I do not believe this is the best investment of our money to get caught up in the Cold War, in the battle against Russia and their nuclear weapons, and making sure we can counter every possible scenario. It is not an efficient use of money.

This amendment is but one piece of it to say let's take a step back and see if this is the best place to spend the money. Maybe it would be better to spend it on cybersecurity. Maybe it would be better to spend it on missile defense.

There are a whole lot of other places I think that are better than trapping ourselves in these nuclear scenarios that require us to build an unbelievably expensive nuclear arsenal.

Secondly, I will disagree with Mr. Rogers on one point: the more you build nuclear weapons, the more the other side tends to build nuclear weapons.

I cannot agree that this is not going to potentially lead to an escalation. In fact, the reason we are so hell-bent on building the LRSO and all of these others is because we are concerned about what Russia and China are doing.

That is how it works. It does have that destabilizing effect. I don't think this is the best place for us to spend our defense dollars.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring before the House H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. It was reported favorably by the House Armed Services Committee at 11:59 p.m. on June 28, 2017, by a vote of 60-1. Now, that vote is an indication of the bipartisan support that exists to support our troops and to fulfill our obligations placed on us by the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is always helpful for us to remind ourselves of the authority by which we undertake our responsibilities. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power and the responsibility ``to raise and support Armies. . . . To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces,'' and, of course, ``To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.''

The members of our committee and our staff take those responsibilities very seriously. This year, we seek to carry them out in a world which is as dangerous and complex as any of us have ever seen. One example from the news of the day is the alarming progress North Korea is making towards having an intercontinental ballistic missile that can carry nuclear weapons to our homeland.

Now, we have, of course, a number of tools to use, including diplomacy and sanctions, but there is no substitute for military power, and I believe we must develop and deploy more of it to be ready to deal with these growing threats.

So the bill before us today substantially increases money for missile defense so we are more capable of protecting our homeland against those ballistic missiles. It also increases funding for key munitions and for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance so we can have better visibility on what adversary is doing.

It increases the end strength for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, just as they requested. And it funds more joint exercises with key allies in the Pacific. It boosts our shipbuilding budget to get more ships into the water faster, and also cheaper.

So, just as an example, Mr. Chairman, each of those items is important for dealing with this growing threat coming from North Korea, and we could sit here and go through a similar sort of discussion when it comes to Iran, or the provocative actions of Russia and China, or the terrorist organizations of various shades.

Of course, we cannot guarantee that the capabilities that we will vote on in this bill will be available by the time the crisis comes for, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we are still dealing with defense budgets that were cut by more than 20 percent at a time when the threats around the world were growing. So we can't guarantee that these capabilities will be available when we need them.

But what we can guarantee is, if we don't fund these things now, they will not be available when we need them, so that is the priority given to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, exactly 1 month ago, on June 12, Secretary Mattis and Chairman Dunford testified before our committee. And I would like to read just one paragraph of the Secretary's testimony where he was comparing what the military was like when he left it and when he came back as Secretary.

Secretary Mattis testified: ``Four years later, I returned to the Department and I have been shocked by what I have seen with our readiness to fight. For all the heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more harm to the readiness of our military than sequestration. We have sustained our ability to meet America's commitments abroad because our troops have stoically shouldered a much greater burden.''

Four years later, shocked, more harm by sequestration than the enemies in the field, and it is only because our folks are so incredible that they have born an increasing burden. That is what the Secretary testified.

Mr. Chairman, we have, indisputably, the finest military in the world, but it is also indisputable that it has been severely damaged by continuing resolutions, by sequestration, and by failure of the executive and legislative branches to adequately support the men and women out there on the front lines. We have an urgent need to begin to repair and rebuild our military.

And I also believe, Mr. Chairman, it is fundamentally wrong to send men and women out on dangerous missions without providing them the best equipment, in the best shape, with the best training that our country can possibly provide. This bill, if followed by matching appropriation, takes a significant step toward meeting that objective, to support those troops.

It also makes major reforms in the way the Pentagon does business. Among other reforms, it enables the military to buy commercial products through online sites such as Amazon, Staples, and Grainger. We require life cycle maintenance costs to be considered at the beginning of a program, as must intellectual property rights, to maximize competition in the maintenance and repairs. Oversight into service contracts has increased, and there is much more, of course, in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is the vehicle by which we usually, for 55 years, at least, fulfill our responsibilities under the Constitution that I mentioned, to provide for the common defense. I believe that is the first job of the Federal Government.

I want to just express my appreciation to each of the members of our committee. Each of them has contributed to the product before us. Each of them takes their responsibilities under the Constitution very seriously; no one more so than the Ranking Member, Mr.

Smith of Washington. We don't always agree on the judgment calls about issues, but I have no doubt that he and all the members of the committee try to do what is right for the country and put the interests of our troops first.

That is exactly the attitude that we must follow, I think, on the floor over the next 3 days as we go through the amendments which we will consider.

I also want to express appreciation to the committee and personal staff who have worked on this bill.

It has been a challenging year for a variety of reasons, but, as I started, I will finish. I am proud of this product. I hope it will gain the support of the entire House.

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chair of our Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to make two points.

Number one, President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009. The first national security strategy he submitted was in May of 2010, a year-and-a-half later. So I don't think it is completely unreasonable that we haven't yet gotten the national security strategy from the new administration.

Secondly, the pay raise for the troops is based on the statutory formula which is related to the cost of living. That is where it comes from. And it seems to me to say, no, you don't really get what the formula says you deserve, is not appropriate.

Now, the administration did not request it, and the criticism from some is that we should not provide it. I think if the formula is wrong, we should change it, but if the formula says that is how much the cost of living has gone up, we should provide it.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), the chair of the Subcommittee on Personnel.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) who is the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik) who is the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon) who is a valued member of the committee and a retired Air Force General.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight) who is another very valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), a valuable member of our committee who continues to serve our Nation in the Reserves.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, as usual, the gentleman from Washington makes a number of good points.

We absolutely need to have national security based on a strategy and fund that strategy. There are many of us who would argue that is not what has happened in recent years.

I would just point out it was not only President Obama, but also President Bush and President Clinton. None of them provided a national security strategy in the first year that they were in office. I have tremendous confidence in Secretary Mattis, among others on the national security team. I believe they are looking at these issues and will provide us with a strategy.

The gentleman is also absolutely correct when he points out that the Defense Authorization bill is only one step in the process. There are many more steps to come.

I think we will have a budget on this floor to vote on shortly. I also expect that we are going to have appropriations to vote on at some point in the coming weeks. I also believe that we are going to have the opportunity to vote on dealing with the sequestration caps, which, by the way, the administration and I think most of us in the House and I presume most in the other body as well are in favor of doing away with because they have not been successful in accomplishing the goal for which they were put in place.

So there are clearly many more debates to have on other days. What we have this week on the floor before us is the Defense Authorization bill. And it is our obligation to authorize the things that the military needs.

I want to go back to the point that Mr. Banks made a few minutes ago. These are life-and-death decisions. Our hearts break, our prayers go out to the families of the 15 marines and the one sailor who lost their lives Monday of this week in the plane crash in Mississippi, just as our hearts go out and our prayers continue for the family members of the seven sailors who lost their lives off of Japan a few weeks ago.

What it reminds us is exactly what Mr. Banks said: this is a dangerous business, even on training mission, even on routine deployments. The men and women who volunteer to serve our country to protect us and to secure our freedoms deserve the very best our country can provide them. That is the goal of this bill: support the men and women who serve us and to further the national security of the United States.

You have heard from both sides of the aisle about many good things that are in this bill. We are going to go through a lot of amendments over the next several days. But at the end of the day, the point is, even with the good, the bad, and the ugly that gets put in this bill, to support the men and women who serve by voting ``yes,'' and I hope my colleagues will do that.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be included in the Record on H.R. 2810:

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.

Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write concerning H.R. 2810, the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, as

amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation that

fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure.

However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.

This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding

that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice

the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or

to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters

contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within

the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge the

Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference

committee named to consider such provisions.

Please place a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee

report on H.R. 2810 and into the Congressional Record during

consideration of the measure on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Bill Shuster,

Chairman.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment that contains technical and conforming edits to the bill. I do not know of any controversy.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), chair of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I am concerned about a growing notion that we can thank servicemembers for their service but then somehow not provide them everything they need to do their job, that we can continue to allow them to have airplanes that don't fly, ships that can't sail, not having the readiness they need to prepare for the missions we send them on. As the gentleman from Ohio said, that hurts people, and, unfortunately, that is what has happened in recent years.

Mr. Chairman, defense spending this year is still 18 percent below what it was in 2010. So what has happened is we have cut the defense budget while the threats that we send our military out to keep us safe from have grown. And remember, 2010 was before Russia invaded Crimea, before China started building islands in the South China Sea, before ISIS even existed.

This budget that is before us does not fix all our problems. It is a start, and I think it is about as much as we can do in a single year. But even if this bill passes, we are not up to 2010 levels; we have not made up the ground that we have lost.

I believe that the men and women who serve deserve our best. This bill, I believe, comes close to providing our best to them this year. It should be supported, and this amendment should be rejected.

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

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

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, in some ways, I think this may be one of the most important debates we have in the next 3 days because the question is whether our support for the men and women who serve in the military is conditional or not. Will we only repair the planes they fly, will we only fix the ships they sail if, and only if, exactly an equal amount will be added to domestic spending programs.

Will we only provide for military spouses for their needs? Will we only take care of wounded warriors for their increased needs if, and only if, an exact amount, the exact dollar for dollar, is added to domestic programs?

That holds the military hostage to a domestic political agenda, and I think that is fundamentally wrong at every level. These men and women go out and risk their lives to keep us safe, yet they not only have to worry about North Korea up on the DMZ, they not only have to worry about ISIS in Syria, they have to worry about whether we will pass some domestic program if we are going to adequately provide for them.

The Constitution says it is Congress' responsibility to provide for the military without condition. This sort of approach, saying, ``We will only do this for the military if, and only if, we get what we want on domestic programs'' breaks faith with the men and women who serve. It is wrong at every level.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I think all of us care about domestic spending programs. I certainly do. And I am not for the cuts that were proposed by the administration. That is what we are here to do and decide.

What I am opposed to is the sense of Congress that every dollar we increase in defense has to be matched by an increased dollar on the domestic side. That makes it conditional. That makes it tied to a domestic political agenda on the EPA, the IRS, education, transportation, whatever it is.

My point is that all of those things need to stand on their own merits. Defense needs to stand on its own merits, support for our military needs to stand on its own merits, having planes that fly and ships that sail and adequate funding for our troops and their families stand on their own merits.

It cannot be conditional upon whether or not this Congress or this President agrees on other spending items. They need to stand on their own two feet, too. But it is absolutely wrong to say we will only support these military folks if we get what we want on the domestic side.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais), a valuable member of our committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership in bringing this years's NDAA. I would also like to thank my friend and colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Jim Cooper, the ranking member on our subcommittee, for being such a great partner as we worked on this important bill.

Now, I would like to focus on some key provisions in the bill. First, space reform. This bill takes two monumental steps to reform national security space. First, the bill provides for the creation of a space core within the Air Force to fix the fragmented space acquisition process.

Second, it provides for the establishment of a subordinate, unified command for space under U.S. Strategic Command to ensure integration of the joint command of all space operations.

I can't stress enough the urgent necessity of these reforms. Our society and our military are enormously dependent on space. Meanwhile, our adversaries continue to grow their counterspace capabilities. These adversaries have already reorganized their space forces toward the goal of neutralizing our advantage in space.

Multiple studies going back almost two decades have recommended a space force to fix our space acquisition and management problems. Regardless, the DOD and the Air Force have yet to fix the problem. Decisionmaking authorities for space acquisitions remain fragmented across over 60 organizations. This bill would consolidate acquisition authority and improve our ability to jointly operate in space.

Earlier this week, I returned from Asia where I got to meet with our troops on the Korean Peninsula. I was in theater when North Korea conducted their intercontinental ballistic missile. We must be vigilant when it comes to our missile defenses, and this year's NDAA does that.

Noteworthy initiatives in the bill include the authorization of approximately $2 billion in additional funds for the Missile Defense Agency. It also accelerates our efforts to develop a space-based sensor and interceptor capabilities. Lastly, the bill supports our nuclear deterrence and includes provisions to improve the oversight of our nuclear command, control, and communications.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Blumenauer, for his amendment, although I urge its defeat.

I start off with pointing out that both the Obama administration and the Trump administration have decided the fact that Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, and neither of those administrations have indicated any belief that Russia will come back into compliance.

But having said that, I want to say I am troubled that the gentleman would want to provide a veto on the development of a system that hasn't been developed, much less deployed. The gentleman is worried about deployment of a system that we still don't have developed yet. And hopefully it won't be deployed when it is completed.

That is really the function of whether Russia comes back into compliance. General Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the HASC in March: ``They do not intend to return to compliance absent some pressure from the international community and the United States as a cosigner of that same agreement. There is no trajectory in what they are doing that would indicate otherwise.''

The development of this system that we are talking about here today is that very pressure that General Selva was referencing. This kind of development got the Russians to the table on the INF Treaty anyway, but they are violating the treaty. And that doesn't just matter to Europe. It matters to Asia, which is completely ignored by the gentleman's amendment. And Asia matters on INF. Why? Because 95 percent of China's missiles are in INF range.

The commander of PACOM has testified that he has requirements for intermediate-range missile capability in Asia, ``the aspects of the INF Treaty that limit our ability to counter Chinese and other countries' land-based missiles, I think is problematic. ``

We didn't conjure the idea of a ground-launched cruise missile out of thin air. The U.S. Army reported that introducing intermediate-range ground-launched missiles into the land domain provides military value across the range of the joint military operations and provides a land-based counter to our adversaries' anti-access area denial capabilities.

This report was required by the HASC last year as a part of our multiyear oversight on how to respond to Russia's violations of the INF Treaty, which the prior administration did nothing to challenge.

I appreciate the gentleman's interest. I will gladly work with him on ways to counter Russia's violations of the treaty, but I must urge defeat of this well-intentioned but poorly conceived amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of the bipartisan approach taken by the House Armed Services Committee in sections 1244 and 1245, and I urge a vote ``no'' on the Blumenauer amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, again, I want to remind the gentleman that nobody has indicated that Russia has any intention--they see no signs that Russia has any intention of coming back into compliance.

I think this is poorly thought out. We need to go forward and not be giving vetoes to other people about what weapon systems we can start developing.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for offering this important amendment.

This is a simple and straightforward amendment that would help us set priorities in spending taxpayer dollars in a small but meaningful way. The U.S. signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, back in 1996, but the Senate voted against that ratification in 1999.

We are talking about two decades ago. In the meantime, the U.S. has abided by a unilateral pledge to refrain from nuclear explosive tests of any size or kind, but other nations, including Russia and China, have not. They continue to conduct very low-yield nuclear tests that the U.S. does not. Why? Two reasons: one, the CTBT has not entered into force, and the CTBT doesn't even define what it bans.

So while we keep a very stringent policy against testing, other nuclear powers do not. Twenty years later, it is time to ask ourselves why we continue to fund the organization for a treaty that is not going anywhere. This amendment wisely funds the International Monitoring System which provides us some benefits but prohibits the approximately $2 million in payments to the CTBT organization itself that is included in the FY18 budget request for the State Department.

Let's set this small commonsense priority and let's reinforce the Obama administration's own position that the U.N. resolution from last year is not legally binding on the United States.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, my friend from California is correct about one thing: I will say a 30-year cost estimate is not worth the paper it is written on.

I oppose this amendment, just as I opposed a similar amendment by my friend from California, number 12. I submitted amendment No. 88 that we will consider shortly. My amendment was a hopeful compromise with my colleagues from California, who are offering amendment Nos. 10 and 12 on this same issue. Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a compromise, so we will put them all before our colleagues here on the floor for consideration.

The bottom line is that my colleagues are asking DOD and CBO to create a 25- and 30-year cost estimate for how much our nuclear forces cost. That would triple the current requirement of 10-year cost estimates. Unfortunately, these type of multidecade cost estimates won't be worth the paper they are written on.

As evidence for that, Assistant Secretary of Defense Tom Hopkins, who would be responsible for creating the DOD report, has called a 25-year report on this ``burdensome.'' He explained it to us this way during a hearing: ``Right now we submit a 10-year report that does have programs and cost on it. . . . As you would expect, looking out that far, 25 years, the credibility of the numbers would be very, very suspect. . . .

``Forecasting DOD costs over a 25-year period with any useful accuracy is extremely difficult given the challenges of predicting developments in the international security environment and ongoing technological advancements.''

The Armed Services Committee and this House have considered these types of 30-year cost estimate amendments for DOD or CBO in the NDAAs for the last 5 years.

Each time, for 5 years in a row, these amendments have been defeated. That is because these types of amendments would not result in good, effective oversight and transparency.

It would result in false and unreliable data entering the public debate. If any of my colleagues are interested in a reasonable, commonsense way to try and shed a little more light on these very long- term plans and costs, I encourage them to vote for my amendment No. 88. My amendment allows the Secretary of Defense to provide for information beyond 10 years if he thinks it is accurate and would be useful in understanding the nuclear modernization programs.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this current amendment and ``yes'' on my amendment No. 88, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that the Navy provides 30-year cost estimates because Congress made them, and the Navy

doesn't want to do it, and they don't think they are reliable.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose this amendment from my friend and colleague from California. He is a very serious, thoughtful, and clearly articulate Member, but it is for the same reasons that I just outlined with Mr. Aguilar's amendment.

I will keep this brief because we just talked about this. But going down this path for a 25- or 30-year cost estimate for nuclear weapons is a bad idea and would result in bad data. The Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Obama administration who is still in the Trump administration doesn't think it is a good idea either.

The HASC and the House have considered this 30-year cost estimate for the last 5 years in a row, and each time it has been rejected. This amendment would not result in good, effective oversight and transparency.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider voting for my reasonable, commonsense amendment when we get to it, amendment No. 88. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``yes'' on Rogers 88.

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

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. We don't want to be mushrooms, but we also don't want bad data. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this and urge people to support Rogers amendment No. 88, which will allow the Secretary to go beyond 10 years to 25 or 30 if the Secretary believes it would yield valuable data.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, but it is not just me. The Armed Services Committee considered nearly the same amendment during markup, and it was soundly defeated.

It is not just the committee that opposed this amendment. It is also our country's senior-most military officers. They repeatedly described the urgent need for the LRSO and the declining reliability of the NACMs.

They have testified before our committee in March on this exact issue. Here is the Nation's second highest ranking military officer, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Selva:

ALCMs were designed and built in the 1970s with a 10-year

lifespan. We know today they remain relevant, but we can't

continue to maintain them. A decade from now, those weapons

will not be able to penetrate Russian air defenses, and

therefore there is an urgency for their replacement.

In the same year, STRATCOM Commander General Hyten said:

The LRSO is the first missile system developed in unison

with a nuclear warhead in mind for many decades. Limiting

resources or funding of either component will disrupt the

entire concept-to-capability timeline.

Here is President Obama's Assistant Secretary of Defense, Bob Scher, testifying before my committee last year:

The Obama administration's decision to field a modern ALCM

replacement is essential to maintain the ALCM's unique

contribution to stable and effective deterrence.

Finally, let me briefly address this nonsense argument that LRSO is destabilizing. Here is President Obama's Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Rose Gottemoeller testifying before the Senate last year:

First, the LRSO is consistent with our arms control

commitments and President Obama's Prague agenda. Second, the

LRSO supports strategic stability and does not undermine it.

Third, it is important in the eyes of our allies. There is no

evidence that the LRSO or our nuclear modernization program

are prompting an action-reaction cycle or catalyzing these

arms races. The LRSO is valuable in maintaining strategic

stability.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I was quoting Rose Gottemoeller from the Obama administration, saying that it was not going to perpetuate this cycle.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), my friend and an outstanding member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will strike section 1022 of the bill that prohibits the transfer or release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States.

We are currently imprisoning 41 people at Guantanamo, 26 of whom are being detained indefinitely without charge or trial, with no proceedings, no hearings, and no opportunity to plea their case, essentially forever.

Beyond existing as an affront to fundamental American values, Guantanamo is a dangerous counterproductive relic of the past. National security experts and our own military commanders agree that Guantanamo harms our national security by serving as a recruiting tool for terrorists and damaging our relationships with allies.

Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult to justify the annual cost of holding each Guantanamo detainee, which is now climbing to an incredible $10 million a year per detainee. Guantanamo is now the most expensive prison on Earth, costing U.S. taxpayers approximately $445 million per year. This is especially disappointing when you consider that each prisoner in Federal maximum security penitentiaries costs only $78,000 a year. Not only does our refusal to close Guantanamo diminish our legal and ethical reputation throughout the world, it also costs American citizens astronomical sums of money for no purpose.

We have made excellent progress towards reducing the numbers of prisoners, and we should continue to do so. About 35 percent of released prisoners were confirmed or suspected of returning to the battlefield during the Bush administration. But the Obama administration developed a robust framework to ensure released detainees were more closely supervised to reduce the likelihood of a return to the battlefield.

The Bush administration struck diplomatic bills to repatriate large batches of prisoners to countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan in bulk, and many recidivists came from those batches.

By contrast, the Obama administration developed an individualized review process by six agencies to determine whether to recommend transferring a detainee. Over time, it also developed more careful diplomatic and monitoring plans with receiving countries to ease a prisoner's reintegration into that country's society.

When the first detainees arrived at Guantanamo in January 2002, America was still reeling from the 9/11 attacks, and the war in Afghanistan had only just begun. Yet, 15 years later, it is clear that the war on terror has dragged on for too long, as we have expanded our involvement in costly clashes in Yemen, Somalia, and Syria. In doing so, we have embroiled ourselves in needless, endless conflict, without an exit strategy or a clear strategy for success.

The recent vote for Congresswoman Barbara Lee's amendment to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in the House Appropriations Committee demonstrated that Congress is finally realizing a blank check for perpetual war must be reevaluated and reconsidered.

Similarly, as we reconsider the 2001 AUMF, I look forward to working together in a bipartisan manner to close the Guantanamo prison, reevaluate our approach to these detainees, and close another dark and sad chapter that has damaged our national honor.

Guantanamo's continued operation provides a momentous challenge to the founding principles of the United States, that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and certainly may not be deprived of liberty indefinitely without due process of law, and for each day that its doors remain open, it becomes increasingly difficult for our Nation to claim the moral and ethical high ground.

We must close the detention facility at Guantanamo now, and this amendment will help us achieve that goal.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I will simply observe that this amendment prohibits the President from transferring prisoners.

Do you really think that Donald Trump, the current President, needs the prohibition that he would transfer prisoners to maximum security prisons in the United States if it weren't safe to do so?

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

Mr. Chairman, it costs the American taxpayer $10 million a year per detainee to keep a detainee in Guantanamo. To keep that same detainee in a Federal maximum security penitentiary in the United States would cost $78,000. That is a ridiculous waste of our military budget. Nobody has ever escaped from a Federal maximum security prison.

Transferring these prisoners to Federal maximum security prisons in the United States would pose no danger to anybody.

And yes, some of these prisoners may be the worst of the worst. Many are not. They were not all caught on the battlefield. Some of them were sold for bounties by people in different tribes or groups in Afghanistan. Some of them were not captured on battlefields at all. Some of them are innocent; some are not.

But to keep them in Guantanamo for $10 million each per year with no possibility of getting out is an affront to our values. It is an affront to our liberties. It is an affront to our military budget and to our pocketbooks, and it is, frankly, plain foolish.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. This amendment will strike section 1023 of the bill that prohibits the use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States for Guantanamo detainees. The provision is simply designed to further delay the transferred detainees out of Guantanamo and is unnecessary and counterproductive.

The arguments for this amendment and against it are essentially the arguments for and against the previous amendment that we just went through. That amendment prohibited the use of funds to transfer prisoners. This amendment prohibits the use of funds--this provision, rather, prohibits the use of funds to construct facilities in the United States to receive such transferees. It is essentially the same pros and cons.

I just want to mention, though, that yes, some of those detainees may be the worst of the worst, but they will still be detained. But some of them are not. They are people who were caught up in bounty situations where they were sold for money because we were giving a bounty if someone claimed that so and so had been in combat against us, but we didn't really know.

We now know mistakes were made. We may choose to say some of these people can go home, and others can stay in the United States. It is simply, again, a question that we shouldn't be

spending $10 million a person, instead of $78,000 a person, to hold them in secure facilities.

The other thing that Ms. Stefanik of New York said I must comment on, she said we are holding people in Guantanamo because if we transfer them to the United States they will enjoy the constitutional rights of prisoners in the United States, and that we don't want to do, for whatever reason. She didn't say.

But the fact of the matter is, Guantanamo was built for that purpose because it was thought by the Bush administration initially that people held outside of the Continental United States, in Guantanamo, which is in Cuba, not the United States, would not enjoy constitutional rights, could not use the writ of habeas corpus and other things.

However, a series of Supreme Court decisions said that was wrong. The prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay have the same constitutional rights as prisoners held in prisons in the Continental United States, so there is no difference on that whatsoever. You can look up the Supreme Court decisions. They are not secret.

And what it comes down to is a prejudice against holding people here because of a ridiculous fear that people will escape from maximum security prisons, which no one has ever done in the United States, and we can't hold dangerous terrorists here, and we shouldn't release terrorists.

But nobody is talking about releasing terrorists. And you can hold dangerous terrorists and dangerous mobsters, dangerous all kinds of people, in maximum security facilities in the United States.

There are really two things we should do: bring them to maximum security facilities in the United States because it saves a lot of money and because it removes a major recruiting tool for our enemies abroad. And, within constitutional rights, people should have the opportunity to have a hearing.

What is most offensive is not that they are at Guantanamo, as opposed to some prison in the United States, what is most offensive is that we are holding some people without any hearing, without any due process, essentially forever.

And yes, we have held people as prisoners of war during the pendency of a war. But we don't claim these people are prisoners of war. We don't give them the rights of prisoners of war. We are just holding them. I am not sure how we are holding them, but we are holding them with no claim of any kind of due process, with no finding that they have, in fact, been terrorists in an individual case; and that is just against all American values.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, no one is proposing to release these people, although some probably should be released, but no one is proposing that, so take that red herring off the table.

Second of all, I, too, have visited Guantanamo, and I don't know how you tell by visiting Guantanamo that these prisoners are the worst of the worst, or not, just by looking at them.

Thirdly, again, they have the same constitutional rights there as here, so you are not changing anything. And bringing them to maximum security facilities in the United States, while it may cost some money if you had to increase the facilities first, instead of spending $445 million, or $10 million a detainee, you would be spending $78,000 a detainee, which would free up your military budget, part of it, for other things.

There is simply no rational reason for keeping these people in a military base in Guantanamo which simply serves as a recruiting tool and a measuring rod for our enemies abroad. So again, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment deletes language in this bill that would mandate a program of record, green lighting this proposal for road-mobile, ground-launched cruise missiles with ranges that, if tested or deployed, would violate the United States' obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

For more than four decades, the United States and Russia have worked through bilateral agreements to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles, saving money, and making the world safer.

Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were at the forefront of this effort with the START 1 and START II treaties.

There is a longstanding precedent of carefully negotiating these treaties in a bipartisan fashion because these leaders knew that a world with less of these weapons meant a safer world for all of us.

Yet over the last several years, our nuclear weapons proliferation has continued on autopilot. Right now we are on track to spend $1.2 trillion on unneeded nuclear weapons. In fact, the Pentagon has concluded that already the United States' security needs could be met with one-third fewer strategic warheads deployed than New START limits of 1,550.

We can and should safely right-size the arsenal as envisioned by Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush. That is why these treaties are so important. They hold us and our adversaries accountable.

We see some confusing signals from the administration, at times appearing to favor nuclear escalation, but at the same time being deeply concerned about managing costs.

President Trump has demonstrated a lack of clear understanding of these treaties, but even his administration is fearful that the language undermining the treaty in this bill ``unhelpfully ties them to a specific missile system.''

Congress should be playing a lead role in getting us back on track with smarter defense spending, not working to abandon this nuclear nonproliferation legacy that Ronald Reagan and Bush, Sr., fought so hard for.

We can't simply fund every weapons program on the list while fulfilling other critical obligations like providing for our military personnel, ensuring we have adequate cybersecurity protections, strengthening our command and control infrastructure, not to mention our non-Defense Department programs like foreign assistance and diplomacy.

We have a poor track record when it comes to carefully managing and budgeting implementation of our weapons programs.

The House continues this poor record now. Why would we establish a program of record for something that our military, our diplomats, and our NATO allies haven't asked for?

Rather than rushing to adopt this program and abandoning a key international treaty in the process, let's think this through. Let's do our homework to make sure our allies, the Departments of Defense and State are all on the same page, and develop a coherent approach to bring Russia back into compliance, rather than throw money at yet another unnecessary weapons program and undercut that regime.

This takes our eye off the ball and could have unintended and, I think in some instances, devastating consequences.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment for smarter defense spending and the protection of a landmark treaty that is part of the legacy of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the amount of time I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, the question is how to get Russia into compliance. Walking away from our obligations? I think not.

The amendment allows going ahead if the Department of Defense certifies to Congress that it has completed a new nuclear posture review to make sure this program fits in the overall strategy; that it certifies that it prefers this program to ensure that NATO's overall deterrence and defense posture remains credible; that the Department of Defense certified it prefers this missile for maintaining strategic stability; that State certifies the program of record is necessary to help verifiably return Russia to compliance; that at least one NATO member state has proven it is serious about hosting the missile; and State certifies that the full Atlantic Council has endorsed deployment of this missile.

Those are the conditions in the amendment, and I would think they are reasonable conditions that the gentleman should not object to. If he truly believes in the merit of his argument, there is no reason that that cannot be complied with. And if not, it should not proceed.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it is time to insert fiscal sanity into our nuclear weapons planning. We are set to spend $400 billion over the next decade and $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years to recapitalize our entire nuclear arsenal. This nuclear escalation will build a force far exceeding what the Pentagon and security experts have said is necessary to deter a nuclear threat.

A stronger nuclear program is not going to help us deal with the strategic challenges we face today, like the fight the against Islamic State, but it will result in having to crowd out Army, Navy, and Air Force conventional priorities.

We need to revisit the strategy. We are here in Congress to make hard decisions about how to spend taxpayer dollars. The Pentagon should provide long-term cost reports and tell us what certain weapons will actually add to our existing capacity.

My amendment deals with one particular outrageous piece of this unsustainable escalation: the long-range standoff weapon, or the LRSO. Now, this weapon is projected to cost $20 billion to $30 billion.

This amendment would lock the LRSO funding at fiscal year 2017 levels until the administration submits a Nuclear Posture Review to Congress that includes a detailed assessment of why we need this weapon. It wouldn't prevent it. It would just keep the funding at the current level until they can tell us why we need it.

Until the administration carefully examines the utility of the LRSO, why should we rush its development? After all, the father of this device, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, has argued there is scant justification for spending tens of billions of dollars on that weapon. General Mattis has stated numerous times that he is not sold on the LRSO.

We shouldn't risk making tens of billions of dollars in commitments like this with potential failure to follow through all while forfeiting other critical priorities. Before we continue this nuclear escalation on autopilot, let's make sure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), who is the ranking member.