Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2810) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

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

When asked about this process that we are now dealing with this morning, with respect to the Hartzler amendment, Speaker Ryan said: ``It's a free process. It's open process. She can bring an amendment to the floor if she wants to.''

Really? This is an open process? She should be able to bring an amendment that we all think is discriminatory and, quite frankly, bigoted, to the floor; yet amendments that we have tried to bring to the floor that deal with the issue of war and whether or not we should be in these endless wars are denied.

What kind of free process is that? Maybe it is a free process in Russia, but it is not a free process in the United States of America.

This process is a sham. Fifty-two percent of the amendments that were brought before the Rules Committee were rejected. You might want to defend that process, but I don't.

The gentleman says that mission creep has occurred, and that we have a responsibility here in this House. You are absolutely right we have a responsibility. When are we going to live up to it?

And the Cole amendment, which I am happy to support, is a report. We have had reports up to here that have been brought before the NDAA process over the years. Enough. Time to do our job.

This is why people are cynical about Washington when they hear this kind of doubletalk. Yeah, we get it. We are worried about mission creep. Congress ought to do its job. And so what are we going to do? Not do our job, but we will issue a report.

Come on, enough.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pocan's Leveraging Effective Apprenticeships to Rebuild National Skills Act, H.R. 2933, which will promote effective apprenticeships that will give

students and workers the skills they need to find well-paying jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, to discuss that proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I agree with the gentleman from Alabama. This bill is about our national security and about protecting our country, which makes it all the more puzzling that the Republicans think this is an appropriate place to be debating amendments on transgender issues. But anyway, they are in charge, so they can do whatever they want to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), and I also congratulate him on becoming a new dad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take 1 minute to address something the gentleman from Alabama raised a while ago, and that is: Why would we be raising the issue of apprenticeships and workforce training as part of the Defense Authorization bill.

There are a couple of reasons why. One is because we are routinely blocked from bringing any meaningful legislation to the floor, and we are routinely blocked from bringing amendments to the floor that I think can help with this issue.

The gentleman mentioned the action we took in a bipartisan, unanimous way on the issue of Perkins loans and a few other programs. Those are important. But it is the beginning. We need to do much, much more in this country. We need to be able to prepare a workforce that can meet the needs of our manufacturers and be there for the jobs of tomorrow. That is why we brought this up. That is why we are bringing it up in this fashion.

I would just go one step further to say, when we talk about national security, I think we ought to broaden that definition to include not just the number of bombs we have, but the quality of life that our people in this country enjoy: whether or not people have the security of a job, whether they can afford a college education for their kids, whether they can afford to buy a home, whether they can afford to put food on the table.

We live in the richest country in the world, and there are 42 million Americans who are hungry, and yet we somehow can't get the political will to address that problem or fix some of these challenges.

We are going to take any opportunity we have to bring to the floor serious ideas that we think will benefit the American people, uplift the American people, and that is why I think that this bill that we are trying to bring up, H.R. 2933, authored by my colleague, Mr. Pocan, is appropriate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a theme that is developing on the Republican side. We can always take it up at another time, at another time in the future. We can do the NDAA bill and this. That is the whole point of defeating the previous question. You can still debate the National Defense Authorization Act, and you can bring up this other thing that we think is of great value to workers in this country. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

It is that same thinking when it comes to war. As I began this debate talking about the war in Afghanistan and the fact that it is the longest war in American history, we don't even talk about it here. We don't even debate it here.

We ought to respect the men and women who we put in harm's way enough to make it a priority in this Chamber, and we don't even talk about it. We can't even bring amendments to the floor to deliberate on that. What we are told is: Well, we will vote on a study, another study. After 16 years? That is the best we can do? Or we are told that it falls under the jurisdiction of another committee.

Well, my friends on the Republican side are in charge. I am sorry to say that, but you are.

And I don't know what is standing in your way from asking the committees of jurisdiction or multiple committees to come together and to actually present to this Chamber an AUMF for these wars. There is nothing, other than the fact that you want to avoid an uncomfortable vote for your Members.

Well, that is just too bad. War is a big deal. It ought to be a big deal, and we ought to treat it more seriously than we are. And I will repeat what I said at the beginning of this debate: What the Rules Committee did last night was shameful; blocking germane amendments, blocking serious amendments, to address an issue that, quite frankly, we should have been talking about a long time ago.

Again, I regret that this is the rule that my Republican friends have come up with. They can say they are proud of it. Quite frankly, I am ashamed of it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the war and the authorization that the gentleman was talking about is 2001. We have been there for 16 years. In 2001 we were going after al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is gone. We are now fighting the Taliban and propping up one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Our mission continues to change.

The idea that we should be operating in Afghanistan under an AUMF from 2001, that somehow nothing has changed, is ludicrous. And the idea that we are using that authorization to justify our military operations in Syria and a whole bunch of other places in the world is ludicrous. Enough. Enough.

This Chamber needs to do its job, and this leadership needs to get out of the way, and Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans-- need to come together and debate these issues seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Congressional Record a letter from 14 conservative and liberal national organizations opposing a defense bill that busts the budget caps.

July 10, 2017.

Dear Representative McGovern: As organizations representing

Americans across the political spectrum, we are writing to

voice our strong opposition to attempts by Members of

Congress to increase the Pentagon's fiscal year 2018 budget

above both the budget caps set by the Budget Control Act and

the President's budget request. The Pentagon is currently

funded at a higher level than at almost any time since World

War II, and the budget problems it faces should be solved by

better fiscal management, not by adding more money to an

already bloated and wasteful department.

The challenges facing our military are partially the result

of years of failing to make the necessary, tough choices our

nation's security requires. Rather than prioritizing basic

needs of the warfighter, lawmakers have pursued huge,

expensive weapons systems that fail to meet technical

specifications and may never be ready for combat. Waste and

unnecessary overhead abound, with a Defense Business Board

study showing that the Department of Defense could save up to

$125 billion over five years just by eliminating excess

bureaucracy and inefficiencies.

Claims of a so-called ``readiness crisis'' are exaggerated.

As former DoD Comptroller Robert Hale said in February, these

claims are just the services ``putting their worst foot

forward'' in the hopes of securing funding increases. General

David Petraeus has also said that this idea of a readiness

crisis is a myth. By opposing important cost-saving measures

like base realignment and closure which could save several

billion dollars a year just by closing excess infrastructure,

Congress is demonstrating that it is not prioritizing fiscal

responsibility or making the choices that will actually keep

us safe. Moreover, the Pentagon cannot be sure what it is

spending as it is the only federal agency that has never

passed an audit.

Budgets necessitate tradeoffs. Pentagon spending increases

shortchange other important priorities, from domestic needs

including education, health and nutrition and affordable

housing, to paying down the national debt. Further increasing

the Pentagon's budget by tens of billions of dollars without

a clear strategy will do little to solve national security

challenges. Rather, it will simply guarantee further wasteful

spending at the Pentagon. We hope that you will oppose any

attempts to increase the Pentagon's budget for fiscal year

2018.

Sincerely,

American Friends Service Committee; Center for

International Policy; Coalition on Human Needs; Council for a

Livable World; Freedom Works; Friends Committee on National

Legislation; Iraq Veterans Against the War.

National Coalition for the Homeless; Taxpayers Protection

Alliance; Taxpayers United of America; The Libertarian

Institute; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church

and Society; Win Without War; Women's Action for New

Directions.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter to all Representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to the Hartzler amendment, which it deems as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, July 13, 2017.

Vote NO on Hartzler Amendment No. 315 to the NDAA--

Discriminatory and Unconstitutional.

Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union

(ACLU) is strongly opposed to Hartzler Amendment No. 315 to

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

(NDAA), H.R. 2810. This amendment would bar transgender

members of the Armed Forces and military families from

receiving appropriate and medically necessary health care.

This is a discriminatory, unconstitutional attack on

transgender service members and their families, plain and

simple. It should be overwhelmingly rejected by members of

the House of Representatives.

Barring access to appropriate and medically necessary

health care, including transition-related care, for

transgender service members and their families is not only

discriminatory, but runs counter to scientific evidence and

contemporary medical standards of care. It also puts the

health of certain service members at needless risk and

undermines the ability of military medical professionals to

provide necessary care for their patients.

There is a clear and overwhelming consensus among the

leading medical organizations--including the American Medical

Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the

American Psychological Association--that transition-related

care is safe, effective, non-experimental, and medically

necessary. If a military doctor determines that transition-

related care (e.g. hormone therapy) is medically necessary

for a transgender service member, then that treatment should

be provided just as it would be for any other medical

condition for any other service member.

Members of the House of Representatives should

overwhelmingly reject this discriminatory attempt to deny

necessary health care to certain service members and their

families. All of the members of our Armed Forces willingly

put their lives on the line in defense of our nation. The

least that Congress can do is ensure that the health care

needs of our service members and their families are being

met.

Accordingly, the ACLU is strongly opposed to Hartzler

Amendment No. 315 to the NDAA and urges all members to vote

NO on it.

Please contact Ian Thompson, legislative representative.

Sincerely,

Faiz Shakir,

National Political Director.

Ian Thompson,

Legislative Representative.

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to me that we have time to debate a bill that discriminates against transgender members of the Armed Forces and military families, but we can't find the time to debate war. It really is sad. It is a sad commentary on the way the Rules Committee conducted itself last night.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman believes that what we are doing in Afghanistan is consistent with what was envisioned 16 years ago, he can go on thinking that, but it isn't. And if he thinks it is okay that that authorization is used to justify every military involvement we have all around the world, he can go ahead and think that way. I think he is very much mistaken.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has to stop kicking the can down the road. It is unconscionable that the Republican leadership continues to prevent meaningful debate on these wars. But let me say one thing about why our House colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, keep bringing these issues up, despite the opposition from the Republican leadership. And that is because it is our job.

The American people sent us to Washington to debate the uncomfortable issues and to take difficult votes. Now, there were some in Congress-- maybe my friend is included in that--who think that it is acceptable to give this administration a blank check to continue these endless wars. Why anybody--no matter who is President, but especially with this President--would feel comfortable giving him a blank check is beyond my comprehension.

There are others who would like to end them and bring our servicemen and -women home. And then there are others who look for a different policy somewhere between these two positions. This is why we need to debate these wars. This is why we need to bring updated AUMFs to the floor for a vote.

If that is a debate that you would rather not have, if that is a vote that you would rather not take, then Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that you should look for a new job. You should go into a different vocation.

I am sure that I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that protecting the lives and well-being of our uniform men and women is one of the highest priorities, if not the highest priorities, of this Congress. But they deserve more than a ``thank you'' on Veterans Day.

We do not respect their service and sacrifice and that of their families when we refuse to debate and take any responsibility for sending them year after year into war. They deserve a thoughtful, reasoned, and engaged debate. They deserve a debate. They deserve a little attention in this Chamber, not excuses and not more reports and not more, ``We will get to it in the future.''

And that is why, along with many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues, we will continue to demand that the Republican leadership of this House allow a debate and a vote on the future of these wars.

I just want to say, finally, Mr. Speaker, I have been raising this issue not just when Republicans have been President, but when Democrats have been President. I really believe that Congress has forfeited its constitutional responsibilities. We have abrogated our constitutional responsibilities. We have acquiesced time and time again to Democratic and Republican administrations when it comes to war.

We can't allow that to happen. That is not responsible governing. We have an obligation to make sure that whatever we are doing with regard to our military, that it is the right thing to do.

The idea that we once again come to the floor with the National Defense Authorization bill and we are told we cannot debate any of these things, we can't vote on any of these things, I mean, give me a break. What are you thinking? Why is this such a big, difficult thing to overcome with the leadership?

Again, if my friends don't want to take uncomfortable votes, then do something else. Don't vote. But it is not the right thing to do. We should be ashamed of this process. There is no justifying shutting out debate on war.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and vote ``no'' on the rule, too.

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. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, since 2001 when we passed the original Authorization for Use of Military Force against al-Qaida and against associated enemies, the nature of the war on terror in which we find ourselves has changed dramatically. We now find ourselves fighting enemies that simply did not exist at the time in areas that nobody in Congress anticipated we would be at war.

This has caused a number of us to have very serious concerns as to whether or not the original Authorization for Use of Military Force is still relevant, and frankly, many of us have concerns that the war- making power of Congress is slipping away from us. Indeed, we find ourselves engaged since that original AUMF in 14 different countries on more than almost 40 different occasions without Congress authorizing the use of force. In our view, a new AUMF is necessary.

However, I also recognize that needs to come through a process. My effort here is to try and set up a process where the administration can participate, we can have an orderly discussion, and the appropriate committees can mark up a new AUMF if Congress, indeed, thinks it does-- and again, I think many of us do.

A new AUMF would provide clear authority for ongoing operations against ISIS and other terrorist groups, and it would fulfill the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of force. My amendment directs the President to put forward a strategy, an analysis, and a framework that we can actually debate and take action on.

The underlying bill being considered today provides authorization for training and equipping our military. Just as important is the time to debate and deliberate how that military should be used to defeat our enemies.

Recently, in an appearance before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Secretary Mattis made an appearance, and I actually asked him would it be helpful to have an AUMF. At that time, he said it absolutely would be helpful.

Our men and women who we have deployed in places, again, that nobody in 2001 thought they would be deployed to, need to know that the Congress of the United States is fully supportive of their deployment.

So this amendment would direct that the President, within 30 days after the passage of the legislation, present to Congress a report that, again, justifies the action, tells us the strategy, lays out the objectives. Within 30 days after that report was received, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense could be called before the relevant committees to actually explain and defend that.

Now, again, in my view, I still think we need a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, but I want to start a process whereby that would begin, and I think this would help us achieve that. If others have an opinion, that is fine too, but I think they would still find the report useful and the testimony invaluable.

Sooner or later, Congress needs to take responsibility. I think with the best will in the world, we have slipped into almost endless warfare in a lot of places that none of us anticipated we would be.

Again, these are not actions that I necessarily question, but I think they have not been authorized, not been debated, not been examined, and, frankly, the American people have been denied that debate. Also, frankly, they have been denied the opportunity to hold their Members responsible.

Remember, that original Authorization for Use of Military Force was 2001. Almost 80 percent of the Members of this body have been elected since that original authorization. I think they ought to listen to the debate, and, frankly, their constituents ought to be able to hold them accountable.

So I would urge adoption of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who is the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee for their approach to this problem. It is well known in this body that probably the House Armed Services Committee is the most bipartisan committee that we have. The fact that you have tried in the past and the fact that you are willing to work with us here today is deeply appreciated.

I also thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I want to associate myself with his frustration. He has every right to be frustrated. My friend, the ranking member, is correct. This is a difficult job. It will require bipartisan cooperation and bicameral cooperation.

But isn't that what war is about, to achieve a national consensus?

I think that is exactly what Secretary Mattis was asking for: We will go do any mission that you as the Congress and the administration ask us to do, but give us a clear mission and give us your absolute support in carrying that through.

If we have this debate, there will undoubtedly be dissenting views. That is what democracy is supposed to be about, too. So my friends that would oppose the use of force, for instance, in Afghanistan, that voice ought to be heard and that case ought to be made. Frankly, those of us who are supportive of what we are trying to accomplish against ISIS need to make our case and persuade the majority of this House and of the United States Senate to move forward.

So I take this as the first step on a road. Like my friend, it is a baby step. I would agree with his characterization, but at least it is a step. This couldn't have happened without the cooperation of our leadership in the House and certainly without the help of the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. But, also, it couldn't have happened without the persistence of my friend from Massachusetts. We have worked together, and, believe me, that is unusual. We don't agree on a lot of issues, but we respect one another.

This is also a question of congressional authority. I think it is a profoundly important constitutional issue, and I do believe we have inadvertently--because of the difficulty of the task--allowed war- making power to slip away from us. That needs to stop. We are responsible to the American people. The Constitution is very clear about where war-making power lies.

Frankly, it ought to be difficult to go to war. It ought to demand a lot of cooperation. It ought to be something that we think is worth setting aside our differences, working together, because we are asking men and women to risk their lives. We are putting them in harm's way, and they deserve to know that we are 100 percent supporting them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to advise my friend that I am prepared to close, although, believe me, I could talk about this a long time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by associating myself very much with the remarks of my good friend from Massachusetts.

Frankly, this is an area where we have found common ground because I think we both deeply revere this institution and, frankly, respect the Constitution of the United States.

When he says that we have shirked our duty, in my view, we have. I think it is absolutely a fair statement to make. I think the gentleman from Washington is also correct that it is hard. This is a very complex, difficult kind of war. It is a new kind of war, its enemies morphing into different forms and different places.

All that is true, but it doesn't excuse us from the obligation to do our job and give those men and women the assurance that they are acting at the direct request and order of the American people in fulfilling the responsibility we have asked them to take.

It doesn't directly relate to this issue, but I felt very much the same way as my friend did at the time about Libya. We stretched the NATO alliances so far to get involved in a country where, in my view, we should have never been involved. More importantly, Libya didn't attack NATO. It really didn't make a lot of sense to use that kind of instrument to justify a war.

I aim this at no particular President, either the last one or current one, but, frankly, Presidents don't like Congress very much to tell them what they have to do. They want to be able to do it. Well, I am sorry; the Constitution is very clear about that.

One of the reasons we have a Constitution is because we didn't want to live under a system where it is a monarchy as opposed to a Presidency. It is part of our duty to keep a check on the extraordinary power that we place in the hands of the Chief Executive of the United States, regardless of who that person is, regardless of what party they represent.

My friend makes a good point when he says sometimes we don't trust one another, or we don't want to give the President too much power. We also

don't want to take too much responsibility ourselves, sometimes. For that, we ought to look in the mirror. We ought to be willing to take that awesome responsibility that the Constitution entrusts us with and make the tough decisions that the American people send us here to make. I actually think going through this process will be very good for this institution.

My friend is correct, it is a baby step, and I share his frustration. But I think the current administration deserves a chance to be heard and to present a justification, not just inherit an ongoing conflict.

I think the committee of jurisdiction, the Foreign Affairs Committee, deserves the opportunity to hear this.

My friend expresses a concern which, quite frankly, I share, that we will have a hearing and not much more. That would not be where I would propose that we end. I would hope and would work with my friend to make sure that is not where we end.

I think at the end of the day, whatever the deliberation is, whatever the recommendation is for a new AUMF, it needs to come to this floor, and it needs to be open for full debate. If we can't muster a majority to approve that, then we shouldn't be fighting in the places we are fighting if we are not willing to actually vote and use that.

So I am going to pledge to continue to work with my friend and urge the administration, assuming this actually gets in the final bill, to take it as an opportunity to establish a very clear set of objectives, a very clear strategy, a very clear estimate of the budgetary cost, and a very clear analysis of the legal framework under which they are operating.

I think they, and we, owe that to the country. We certainly owe it to the men and women that we have asked to go and do difficult things and risk their lives on our behalf. They do it willingly. Again, the Secretary of Defense said this would be helpful. This kind of debate would make a difference.

I, again, thank my friends for their cooperation in this. I thank particularly the chairman and the ranking member for allowing us to use this particular vehicle to express it. I thank the leadership of the House for being willing to grapple with this issue. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his persistent efforts; and my friend from California, Ms. Lee, who has also worked on this. A lot of people on our side of the aisle feel exactly the same way.

This is a debate about the future of a conflict, but it is also a debate about the appropriate constitutional authority of the Congress of the United States and a willingness by the Members to embrace this.

So it is actually, I think, a good day, even though it is the first step in a long journey.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, now that the gentleman's motion to adjourn has been defeated by a wide, bipartisan majority, the House can get back to work and do the people's business. I want to go back over some statistics we talked about earlier. This rule makes in order for floor consideration 210 amendments which are on top of the 275 amendments that were offered in the Armed Services Committee.

Now, let's go back to the days when the NDAA was considered on this floor and this floor was under the majority's control on the other side of the aisle. Let's start with 2007. 135 amendments were offered; only 50 were made in order.

In 2009, 129 amendments were offered; only 58 were made in order.

In 2010, 129 were offered; only 69 were made in order.

In 2011, 193 were offered; only 82 were made in order.

And we are making in order in this rule, and yesterday's rule, 210. This has been an open process by any measure.

The gentleman also referred to the fact that there are other needs in America that are not being met because we are spending money on defending the United States of America.

Let me go back and remind what I said earlier. Only 16.8 percent of next year's Federal outlay will go to defending America if we adopt the National Defense Authorization Act as passed by the committee, less than 20 percent. That means almost 85 percent of Federal outlays are going to go to every other thing that we do in government. If there is a problem with something not being paid for, it is not because of the money we are spending on national defense.

Then finally, the gentleman's comments about the need for us to make sure that we are properly authorized as we engage in military activities abroad; I do agree with him. We have had some mission creep over the last several years. We have gone from Iraq and Afghanistan, under President Obama, to Syria, to Libya, to Yemen, and many of us on both sides of the aisles decried the fact that we did that.

It is, indeed, our responsibility, not the President's responsibility, to declare war, to authorize the use of military force. That is why this rule makes in order an amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) that will set in place a process that will lead to the consideration on this floor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

So I believe this rule does exactly what the people of America expect us to do, and that is to stay in this room, stay on this floor, and act on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. Workforce training is very important, and that is why we passed on this floor a few weeks ago the reauthorization of the Perkins Act--not by a bipartisan majority, by a 100 percent vote.

We have other bills that we are considering in the Education and the Workforce Committee that will deal with that because it is important that we build the workforce in America. But you don't do that in the National Defense Authorization Act. That is what we are here today about.

I am afraid my colleagues on the other side have forgotten what this bill is about. It is about making the people of America safe and secure. We will deal with those other issues, as important as they are, in other legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I think that his issue comes within the broader question about the authorization of military force in various parts of the Middle East. I think he raises an important point. There is an amendment made in order under this rule that will put in place a process to get us to that debate.

I appreciate what he just said. I hope that he will hold that idea, and when we have that debate on the floor, will bring it back so we can consider it among those other items we will consider at that time. I appreciate what he just said. This is not the place or the time to take that up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really believe very strongly we need to do more in workforce training in America. I am a former chancellor of postsecondary education, former chair of workforce development for the State of Alabama. It is something that is very near and dear to me. I know that we are working very hard on these issues and have already produced this one bill, the Perkins bill that we passed in the absolutely 100 percent vote here on the floor. There will be more coming.

But the National Defense Authorization Act authorizes what our military does and doesn't do and how it does it around the globe. This is a separate, different vehicle designed to provide for the defense of the American people.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We need to take those comments up at another time as we take into consideration other bills that work on our workforce development.

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

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

I remind all of us that the war in Afghanistan was authorized by an AUMF that was passed by Congress in 2001. So while we can have a debate about the other conflicts in other places, that conflict is, indeed, authorized, and has been authorized from the very beginning. So I would take exception to the gentleman's comments with regard to Afghanistan.

There are provisions in the underlying bill that this rule makes in order and in those provisions that do things to help with that war effort, help the men and women over there fighting that war effort for us.

So I think that this rule and the bill that underlies it are doing exactly what they should do with regard to Afghanistan, because Afghanistan is authorized.

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

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Most of those issues, if not all of them, were brought up in committee when this bill was considered as amendments, and they were defeated in virtually all cases by a bipartisan vote.

I appreciate the fact that she voted for the overall bill, as did everybody but one Member after you take it all into consideration, because that is what this bill is about. We are authorizing a broad swath of the defense of this country. There are a lot of moving parts to it.

Not everything in a bill this big is going to be satisfactory to everybody on the committee. I can pick out one or two things I don't like about it. But as a whole, it does the job that needs to be done for the people that we depend upon to defend America.

So I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, but most of all, I appreciated her vote at the end of the day when we approved that bill after markup in committee.

Now, I do want to respond to one thing that the gentleman from Massachusetts said. He talked about, we are still there fighting the Taliban. The 2001 AUMF specifically references the Taliban.

So we can talk about how things in Syria that President Obama did, things in Libya that President Obama did, things in Yemen that President Obama did are outside the AUMF that was adopted in 2001 with regard to Afghanistan, and I think that is a legitimate debate. But there is no legitimate debate about whether or not the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and our involvement with it has been authorized, because it has been authorized for 16 years.

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

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

The gentleman said we can't debate anything. The rule we passed yesterday makes in order 210 different amendments to be debated on top of the general debate of the bill itself. And that is on top of 275 amendments in the committee of jurisdiction, the Armed Services Committee.

This is the most debated piece of legislation we have every year, and it should be for the very reasons the gentleman from Massachusetts itemized, because what we are doing here is of profound importance.

Now, I know that there are other issues that people try to stick into this bill every year that, frankly, distract us from the underlying importance of the bill; and that is, we are trying to do everything we possibly can to protect the American people. The threats the American people face today are more diverse, more profound than we have seen since the end of World War II.

So, yes, this bill authorizes a lot of very important and expensive things. I acknowledge they are expensive. But it is even more expensive if we don't do them, or don't do them right, and we leave the American people exposed.

Just take into account one of our threats, Kim Jong-un in North Korea. That missile test he did recently was an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile. He does not need such a missile to hit South Korea or Japan. He needs that missile to hit us, to hit Alaska, to hit the West Coast of the United States, and ultimately to hit the entirety of the United States.

It is a direct threat to the safety of the people of the United States. This bill authorizes an increase in missile defense, just one of the things that it does.

So I hope that all of us will take the many things that we are going to debate here over the next several days very seriously and that we will come to the bipartisan conclusion, as we did in the committee, that when you take the totality of this bill together after you have gone through all of these amendments, it does the most important thing we are here to do, which is to defend the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 440 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 want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the majority on the House Rules Committee once again decided to exclude from debate 230 amendments to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act. That means that half of the amendments submitted were rejected.

I can never understand why these amendments are denied the chance to be debated by the full House. When I first came to Capitol Hill as an aide to our former friend and colleague, Congressman Joe Moakley, the Defense Authorization bill would often take up to a week for debate. But even back then, it was one of the largest and most complex bills debated, and certainly one of the most important from a national security point of view.

The NDAA rule was also structured back then, but more in terms of the amount of time permitted for debate. And many amendments receive 1 hour, half an hour, 20 minutes, even 2 hours of debate. Why? Because they were about the important decisions and priorities facing our national defense policy at the time.

But that is not the case today. Amendments are lucky to get 10 minutes of debate equally divided if they are lucky enough to be debated at all. And the Defense bill takes up a total of maybe 2 days' worth of debate, if that. No wonder, no wonder Members are frustrated by this process.

This year, like every year for the past several years, important issues, especially on war and peace, were left on the chopping block by the Republicans.

They decided that the House should not debate two bipartisan amendments that would make sure that nothing in the NDAA could be construed as authorization to use force against the governments of North Korea or Syria.

The Republican majority decided it is okay to debate a bigoted amendment that prohibits medical treatment for transgender servicemembers who are in transition, but they will not let the House debate an amendment that just calls for a study, Mr. Speaker, on blood donations from gay men.

Mr. Speaker, did you know that there is a provision in the NDAA that sets up an entire new military service branch, the Space Corps? The Pentagon doesn't want it; the Air Force doesn't want it; they say it is premature, but an amendment by Mr. Turner, a Republican, to require the Pentagon to report on the need to establish a Space Corps is not included in this rule. I guess the Republican leadership doesn't want the House to have a say and a debate on such a major change.

Mr. Amash led a bipartisan amendment to block the sale of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia. Last year, this amendment failed by just a handful of votes. I guess that is why the Republicans on the Rules Committee aren't about to let it come up for a debate and a vote this year.

When it comes to sending our uniformed women and men into war, into danger, where their very lives are at risk, the Rules Committee decided that such amendments were not worth the House's time to debate.

Last night, Republicans on the Rules Committee denied the opportunity for debate on a bipartisan amendment offered by myself and Representatives Walter Jones, Barbara Lee, Tom Massie, John Garamendi, Dan Kildee, and Peter Welch.

The amendment is very straightforward. If the President decides to increase the level of U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2018, then he would report to Congress on the purpose and mission of those troops, how many were required, and how long they would be there, and then Congress would vote to approve or disapprove that escalation.

This would give the American people the voice they deserve when it comes to sending our men and women in uniform into battle.

Mr. Speaker, the President and General Mattis just decided to send an additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, on top of the 8,400 U.S. troops already there. That will bring the total number of American troops there to more than 12,000.

Now, if they should decide that they want even more troops in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2018, Congress should know why, and vote on it.

We can't keep giving the administration a blank check and allow America once again to go down the slippery slope of incremental escalation over the next year or two. Congress needs to step up to the plate and either approve or disapprove any renewed escalation in Afghanistan. Isn't that amendment worth debating?

We are in year 16 of the war in Afghanistan. It is the longest war in American history. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Afghanistan is the longest war in U.S. history. The costs are already in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the human cost to our troops, our veterans, and their families have been enormous, yet Congress has not taken a single vote, has not taken a single stand on this war for 16 years. Most of the Members of this House weren't even here when that one and only vote was taken.

So in the absence of debating an updated AUMF for Afghanistan, the very least we can do is debate whether we will once again escalate our military footprint in Afghanistan, but the Republican leadership of this House doesn't agree.

Each year, the Republican leadership does everything it can to stop any debate on these wars, and this year is no different. They will allow some amendments on reports and a sense of Congress here and there, but any amendment of substance that requires Congress to act is denied.

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise my colleagues of one thing, and that is, we are not an advisory commission. We are a legislative body. We need to start doing our job.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with a report, but it won't be the first time we have seen a report, whether on Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. Even the underlying bill calls for a strategy report on Afghanistan and other conflicts, but Congress avoiding taking any responsibility for continuing to send our servicemen and -women into harm's way is absolutely shameful. Mr. Speaker, it is cowardice.

Every day, military families say good-bye to their loved ones as they go into battle, placing themselves in harm's way to keep our country safe, and Congress does nothing. All we do is kick the can down the road and call for another report and then another report.

Mr. Speaker, we don't even act when the President actually does send us an AUMF, the way President Obama did on Iraq and Syria and the war against ISIS. We did nothing. We said we didn't like it, but we did nothing. The Republican leadership complained that they didn't like it, but then they never even tried to act on it or to write their own AUMF. They would rather just stand on the sidelines, complain and criticize, but do nothing, absolutely nothing, except stop other Members from taking any action that might require the House to debate these wars. Shame on all of us for allowing this to continue over and over and over and over again.

Now, I am guessing that whenever the House takes up the Defense appropriations bill, the Republican leaders will find a way to make sure that the bipartisan-supported provision in that bill to sunset the 2001 AUMF on Afghanistan and vote on a new one within 8 months will somehow disappear without a single Member of the House at large having a chance to vote on it. Maybe we will get another report. And so it goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, there is nearly $700 billion authorized in this bill for wars, for weapons systems, for military equipment, and for personnel, all because Congress refuses to make hard choices. We can never seem to find the money to take care of our own neighborhoods and schools. We can't find the money to provide our citizens with better, more affordable healthcare, or make sure that all our families can put food on the table. We don't invest nearly enough in our roads and our bridges, railways and transit systems. There is never enough money to invest in a 21st century manufacturing base, provide training to support the jobs of the future, or raise the Federal minimum wage to a livable wage. We are told we don't have the money to take care of our parks or to make sure that our air and water are drinkable and breathable. We can't even seem to find the money to take care of our senior citizens and our children, but when it comes to spending on war or building more nuclear weapons, then magically we find trillions of dollars to operate and spend.

We need to pay more attention, Mr. Speaker, to the choices we make each year on how much spending our Nation really requires for its national defense. I believe, at a minimum, Mr. Speaker, that Congress needs to debate and vote on whether to keep sending more and more of our military men and women to fight in endless wars.

And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues, what the Rules Committee did last night by shutting out debate was shameful.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for his hard work and his defense of those who wear the uniform and take on that tough task. In these tough and troubling times, especially in financial austerity, he stood up and let everybody know how the military, in actual dollars over the last 8 years, has been cut significantly, and the impact on our national security.

In that vein, my goal with this amendment is to prioritize those limited defense resources on efforts that pose an immediate and direct threat to our national security.

This amendment would strike section 336 of the NDAA, which strikes the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the vulnerability to military installations and combatant commander requirements resulting from climate change over the next 20 years.

I am not here to debate climate change, whether it is real or it is not, how it is created, how we fix it, and all that stuff. That is for another day. My point is that this shouldn't be the priority of combatant commanders in our military. The United States military is currently operating in a very complex threat environment in which our country must be ready to face our adversaries.

Our country is facing direct threats from a myriad of sources, including Islamic extremists: ISIS, al-Qaida, the

Taliban, Abu Sayyaf. The alphabet soup of names in that regard is continuous and unrelenting: North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, even in space.

Over the past 8 years, our military strength and readiness has suffered as a result of the underfunding and neglect from the previous administration that are in support of sequestration. Through the NDAA, we simply must prioritize, decide what is most important and be for that, and let our warfighters know where we stand.

These things must strengthen the rebuilding of our Armed Forces and resolve their focus on what they need to pay attention to. Literally litanies of other Federal agencies deal with environmental issues, including climate change. This Federal mandate detracts from the essential mission of the Department of Defense, which is to secure our Nation from enemies, and is best left to the agencies that are better suited to deal with these issues.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the Secretary of Defense doesn't need Congress to tell him what the threats are. He knows what the threats are.

I can tell you as a person who has been privileged for over 30 years to wear the Nation's uniform--the Army, the military's uniform--and as a person who was privileged to lead troops in combat in the Middle East, I didn't need Congress to tell me who the enemy is or was. We know that. We also don't need Congress to tell us to report the issues that we might have in defending the Nation to the Congress or to the Commander.

We know our duty, and we will do our duty. If we have issues that need to be reported--whether it is sea level rise or the enemy has a new weapon or we can't feed our troops or what have you--we will report it, and we will resolve it. We don't need people in Washington, D.C., telling us how to run the war. That is our job. That is the military's job.

This amendment simply says that we ought to prioritize that. We ought to let them prioritize that. We ought to let combatant commanders--we ought to let the men and women who wear the uniform and defend our country focus on the enemy. If the enemy, indeed, is climate change, then they will focus on that as well, and they will submit information so that we can make decisions.

The point is, should somebody--should all of us in this uniform in Washington, D.C.--be telling the fine men and women in uniform across the globe defending our country that we know better? That is exactly what I am trying to avoid here.

Little by little, drip by drip, we have watched our Nation's and military's focus eroded--this and that. Believe me. I have filled out the reports. As an officer, I have filled out a whole bunch of reports on a regular basis that have nothing to do with completing the mission of securing our Nation and defeating the enemy--nothing to do with it. This is just one in the long line of them.

My only goal is to send this to where it needs to be--the agencies best adapted to deal with it and take it out of the agencies that shouldn't be dealing with it and should be dealing with securing our Nation and fighting the enemy.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank Mrs. Hartzler, my good friend, for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chair, we are $20 trillion in debt. Taxpayers, by my figures, are projected to pay $3.7 billion over the next 10 years for sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy for those in the military who wish to transition from one sex to another. The total cost includes the manpower lost while the individual transitions, which can take up to a year or longer, depending on complications.

Sex reassignment patients also require specialized medicine following the procedure. And I find that interesting, in the face of the fact I just had a young gentleman come to my office who wants to serve, but he can't serve, because he has got a peanut allergy. Right? He can't go downrange, because we can't have the medicine downrange, and that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything, but we are going to spend $3.7 billion over the next 10 years on sex reassignment surgery as opposed to buying aircraft and body armor and the things that warfighters need to be successful in defending the Nation.

It is really just a priority issue. With limited defense resources and the current state of our Armed Forces, we must prioritize increasing our strength and readiness.