Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

call up House Resolution 478 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the House Rules Committee met yesterday and reported a rule, House Resolution 478, providing for further consideration of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act of 2018. This legislation includes four individual appropriations bills: Defense, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction-Veterans Affairs. The rule provides for further consideration of H.R. 3219 under a structured rule.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a critical measure that will prioritize funding for important components of our national security. This legislation directs funding for our troops and their families, our Nation's veterans, the legislative branch and United States Capitol Police, border and nuclear security, energy and water infrastructure investments, and vital appropriations to ensure our military has the equipment and readiness necessary to keep the Nation safe.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is composed of the serious and essential work conducted by the House Appropriations Committee over the past many months. As an appropriator and a member of this committee, I fully appreciate and understand the hard work my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have put in to report these key measures we have before us today.

The most important job we have as Members of Congress is ensuring the safety of our Nation. By supporting this rule, we can move the national security package forward.

H.R. 3219 includes a 2.4 percent pay increase for our troops. That is the largest military pay increase in 8 years. It keeps our military on the cutting edge of defense technology by investing in research and development and in equipment and weapons procurement. Under the legislation, we will restore readiness shortfalls and make much-needed critical investments for our troops to address ongoing threats around the globe.

We must provide support for our troops to combat terrorism and defeat ISIS. With the legislation, we take a major step forward in restoring the devastating cuts our Armed Forces faced under the Obama administration. The bill also increases funding for construction of critical military infrastructure to keep our troops safe and prepared.

The bill also provides for critical safety and enhanced security functions for the United States Capitol. In light of the recent horrific attack on our colleagues, on staff, and on the Capitol Police, the legislation provides increased funding for the Capitol Police toward increased training, equipment, and technology-related support.

The men and women who guard these hallowed Halls deserve to have access to every resource needed to do their job as safely and as effectively as possible. Under this bill, H.R. 3219, we can ensure that the Capitol Police and House Sergeant at Arms are equipped with these critical enhancements.

Regarding the important Energy and Water provisions included in the bill, the underlying legislation will improve public safety, will create jobs, and will grow our economy by funding the Army Corps of Engineers, prioritizing navigation projects and studies.

H.R. 3219 reduces regulatory red tape, including authorizing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Secretary of the Army to withdraw from the devastating waters of the United States rule.

The bill also funds important Department of Energy programs, including nuclear cleanup efforts, such as the Hanford Site, which is located in my district in central Washington State, as well as nuclear weapons programs to strengthen our national security.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation also provides the highest level of funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs in our Nation's history, ensuring that we keep the commitment to those who have defended our Nation. It supports vital medical care for our veterans, including mental healthcare services, suicide prevention activities, traumatic brain treatment, opioid abuse prevention, and homeless veteran services.

There are some issues here in Congress that are nonpartisan. Every single one of our colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives believes we must provide the best care possible for our Nation's veterans. I am proud of the significant strides this legislation takes to support veterans across the country.

The rule we consider here today provides for the consideration of a bill that is critically important to keeping our Nation safe.

By passing this legislation, we will continue to rebuild our military, ensure we maintain our military superiority, and boost defense efforts in the face of rising global threats.

The bill will aid in supporting our troops and their families, and improve access to care for our veterans. It will increase the safety of the United

States Capitol complex for Members and staff who serve here; for constituents, as well as the tourists from around the globe who visit this campus; and for the valued Capitol Police, who protect us all.

It will also aid in important infrastructure and construction investments to move the United States towards energy independence, improve our economic competitiveness, and fund nonproliferation efforts to prevent, counter, and respond to global nuclear threats.

Most importantly, this legislation will make major strides to projects our men and women in uniform serving across the globe who are protecting our freedoms.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule as well as the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do have a couple of speakers coming who are not here yet.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this point but look forward to having them participate as soon as they get here.

Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loud and clear last November. They voted to support a stronger military, an unyielding national defense, and that includes the need for a much-improved border security. As the gentleman from Texas said, we have threats of human traffickers, drug smugglers, terrorists coming across our borders, and this is something that the American people said that they wanted, and we are responding to that with recommendations from the Customs and Border Protection agency.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the debate on both sides on this very important issue.

Let me just say that this has been a very open process. Not all may want to acknowledge that, but let me just point out that this rule makes 54 amendments in order: 21 of those amendments are from the Democrats, 16 from Republicans, and fully, 17 are led by bipartisan cosponsors. So that tells me that the openness of this process, the ability for people to bring their perspectives, their opinions in this important debate is real.

As far as the Rules Committee unilaterally striking language and reinserting other language, that is true. We struck section 9021 of the Defense Appropriations Act of 2018 and replaced it, though, with language from an amendment offered by Mr. Cole to the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018, which was adopted by the full House on July 13 of this year. It was replaced with language that was approved by this body. So again, Mr. Speaker, I think that points to the openness of this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do know that even though some people would like to ignore the situation we have on our southern border, we do need to respond to those border protection agents who are asking us for help. We do need to respond to the crisis that we see along our southern border to keep our country as safe as possible. And we do need to confirm to people across the country that help is on the way.

Certainly, the border is one aspect of this important piece of legislation, but there are many things in this bill that will help our country and help our military forces keep our Nation safe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from California, I agree that a new authorization on the use of military force is something that is necessary, something that we owe our military, and something that we should do.

The language with the Cole amendment, I think, starts us down that path. In fact, the Foreign Affairs Committee, just this week, is holding hearings on this very important topic.

I look forward to working with Ms. Lee on this, as well as all of us here in this House, to get us to the end result that I think is absolutely necessary, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that one of the beauties of Congress is being able to hear from people firsthand their experiences, who speak not just in theoretical senses but because of the life they live and their constituents, and so I appreciate very much the gentleman from Arizona and his testimony.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the discussion we have had this past hour from all Members that have participated. Although we may have our differences, some difference of opinion, I believe that this rule and the underlying bill are strong measures that are important to ensuring the security and the prosperity of our country. The rule provides for further consideration of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act of 2018.

Let me say again, while my friends on the other side may not want to acknowledge it, this rule makes 54 amendments in order; 21 of those 54 are from my Democratic friends, 16 are Republican, and 17 are bipartisan, led by bipartisan cosponsors. In fact, the majority of the amendments that were made in order under yesterday's rule that provide for the initial consideration of this bill were also led by Democrats, so this reflects the balanced approach of the process under this rule.

Mr. Speaker, it is our job, it is Congress' job, to appropriate the necessary funds to keep our Nation safe and our defense strong. This rule allows us to complete our efforts to complete the appropriations process for our top priorities, those of national security. I look forward, though, to bringing the other eight appropriation bills to the floor to fulfill the rest of our duty. Certainly, as an appropriator, no one wants to see this effort completed more than our committee and as I do.

I have appreciated the important advocacy my colleagues on both sides have brought forward through this process, from within the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee, through the full committee, through the Rules Committee, and now, here on the House floor.

The measures included in this rule will provide vital resources for our national defense and for our military infrastructure. As I said, it will boost the pay of our troops, support our military families who sacrifice so much for our country; it will strengthen the care we provide for our veterans and enforce our border security to protect all of the American people.

This rule will also allow for further security improvements for the Capitol campus to protect all who visit here. It will also provide robust funding to improve our Nation's waterways, our infrastructure, our important nuclear clean-up, as well as nonproliferation efforts.

It also reinstates our top priority, providing funding for our national defense. We must begin to rebuild our Nation's military, and I am proud of this as a major step forward, restoring military readiness in order to keep our country safe.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying appropriations within this rule are of the utmost importance to the Nation, and we must move forward with this rule in order to get our job done. The men and women in uniform serving our Nation around the globe are depending on us.

I hope our colleagues, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, will support this rule so that we can do that, get our job done.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I certainly thank the gentleman from Washington, my friend, for his kindness. I think he is one of the best Members we have, but I am going to have to disagree with Mr. Newhouse today.

When Speaker Ryan assumed the gavel, he told the American people that he wanted to have ``a process that is more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, more participatory.''

When the majority took control of both the Congress and the White House, they again promised to abide by standard congressional procedure.

But we are here, 3 months from the end of the fiscal year. The majority hasn't passed a budget resolution, and legislation moves at a glacial pace. The majority working to rush through a massive minibus before any individual appropriations bills have been considered on the floor is also a mistake.

This may sound pedantic, but we do have rules.

Every one of us wants to improve our security, but this bill, I am afraid, is a little more than smoke and mirrors. The increase in defense spending under this bill will never see the light of day.

That is because we operate under the Budget Control Act, and that mandates that any breach of the defense cap, which this bill does, will trigger an across-the-board sequestration cut of all defense accounts, making what we do here a useless exercise, I am afraid.

The majority has also inserted an amendment to provide $1.6 billion President Trump requested to begin construction of the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

This is surely just the beginning of making taxpayers pay for the entire wall, which experts have estimated could cost as much as $21 billion, with nary a peso from Mexico. If we are investing $1.6 billion now, I see no reason why they do not plan to go on to reach the $21 billion expenditure.

Let me put that in some perspective: $21 billion could be used to double the Federal investments in public schools. Think of that. Just the money to build that wall, it could provide 6 million people with healthcare under Medicaid, it could buy school lunches for tens of millions of low-income children. But these investments are not a priority for this majority.

President Trump's own budget director famously said that it isn't worth feeding hungry children if the nutrition does not improve their school performance, and that Meals on Wheels ``sounds great,'' but doesn't work.

I never thought I would hear either of those things come from the mouth of a Federal official. The idea that we should not feed hungry children unless their school work improves, frankly, I am baffled by that, let me say it that way.

The opposition to the wall is bipartisan. Republican Representative Hurd from Texas, a former CIA officer, sits on the Homeland Security Committee and represents the largest border district in the State of Texas. He testified before the Rules Committee late Monday night against it, saying, ``having a one-size-fits-all solution to border security makes no sense.'' Yet this amendment was included without debating the merits on the floor and without giving Members an up-or- down vote.

Let me explain that a little bit. This amendment is in the bill, but there will be no vote on it. It has been what we call self-executed to keep people from being recorded in any way, whether they are for or against the wall.

The last statistic that I saw from the American public is that 68 percent of them oppose it. They will never know whether their Representatives did or not. It is a sort of a bait-and-switch idea.

Mr. Speaker, immigration has enriched our country beyond measure. It is what has allowed our country to shape the world, rather than to fear it. A wall will lock the United States away from the rest of the world.

The President's new communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, wrote online: ``Walls don't work. Never have. Never will.''

We don't know whether he is going to change his mind about that or not, but that is what he said.

One of our famous Republican Presidents that everybody knew and loved, Ronald Reagan, 30 years ago last month stood in West Berlin and demanded that another wall be torn down.

I said in the Rules Committee yesterday and I will say it again here this afternoon: if the President and the majority build this wall, it, too, will be torn down, not by someone crossing the border or by an outside force. It will crumble because the public understands in a way that this President and majority do not, that our Nation does not barricade itself away from the rest of the world.

We will not build walls to keep us in. What kind of superpower would we be if we built a wall around the outside of our Nation and crumbled from the inside because the money we put on the wall kept us from updating our infrastructure, which is in such terrible shape, and a shredded social safety net?

None of us want to find that out, but the majority is putting us on such a path.

Just yesterday, President Trump announced a ban on transgender servicemembers serving in the military. It appears today that he made that announcement all on his own and that neither the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Pentagon had any idea that he was going to do that.

The announcement came 69 years to the day that President Truman desegregated our military. Think about that for a minute. Sixty-nine years ago, on the very day that President Trump said transgender people couldn't serve, was the day President Truman integrated the military services.

This is an insult to the approximately 15,000 transgender soldiers who sacrifice for our country every day. Transgender servicemembers are being attacked from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Just days ago, Republicans joined Democrats to defeat an amendment that would bar transgender servicemembers from receiving the necessary healthcare that they deserve. I will note that these same treatments would have been available to other servicemembers under this amendment. Apparently to the majority, it is not about the treatment, but the person who receives it.

The amendment is especially cruel when you consider that a Pentagon report has found that gender transition-related treatment costs between $2.4 and $8.4 million a year. That is the cost of just four of the President's trips to Mar-a-Lago. Think about that: several millions dollars to go to Mar-a-Lago would have paid for operations for transgender persons.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from USA Today that details this fact.

[From USA Today, July 26, 2017]

OnPolitics Today: Trump's Mar-a-Lago Trips Cost More Than Trans

Soldiers' Health Care

(By Josh Hafner)

President Trump tweeted this morning that the U.S. military

wouldn't allow transgender troops ``in any capacity,'' an

apparent rejection of the military's roughly 6,000 trans

troops and the Obama-era policy that embraced them.

The U.S. ``cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical

costs and disruption that transgender in the military would

entail,'' Trump said.

Except trans troops don't really cost that much, as many

soon pointed out.

A report for the Pentagon last year found that transition-

related care would cost between about $2.4 and $8.4 million

per year--less than 0.14% of the military's medical budget.

That's roughly the cost of four of Trump's trips to Mar-A-

Lago, GQ noted, even using a conservative estimate of $2

million per trip. And it's way less than the $84 million

spent on Viagra and similar meds by the Department of Defense

in 2014, as others also said.

It was, as Sen. John McCain noted, ``yet another example of

why major policy announcements should not be made via

Twitter.''

I believe all of our soldiers deserve our thanks and support. They are Americans. They don't need to be attacked based on who they are.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, it is also outrageous--and I saved this for the end--that the majority stripped from the bill Congresswoman Barbara Lee's bipartisan amendment to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Until this AUMF, which, as I said, came into law in 2001, is rescinded and replaced, the President of the United States can usurp our power and effectively declare war without Congress' concurrence. In fact, that has already happened.

Matters of war are the most serious issues that Congress considers. We should not--and we don't want to--shirk those responsibilities. We want to fulfill our constitutional duties.

Yet Speaker Ryan removed it from the bill without any debate or single vote because he was afraid of it. He replaced it with weaker language requiring a 30-day study. After those 30 days, we are not assured of anything at all, just a study.

That is not the type of open and transparent process that the Speaker promised. More than just bad process, it silences the debate we need to have. All Americans, especially our men and women in uniform, deserve better from us, as they volunteered to save us with their very lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow the House to consider Representative Lee's AUMF amendment--authority to use military force. This will provide all Members the chance for an up-or-down vote, which we have, thus far, been denied.

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

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

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we hadn't had this last election and the campaign that went with it, we wouldn't be talking about any wall. One of the candidates threw out that he would like to have a wall and was sure--he gave us the absurd notion that somehow Mexico would pay for it.

Not many of us believed that, but I will tell you, now that we have put in this $1.6 billion for this wall, I will bet you that we are going to finish it, and we don't know how much it costs--somewhere between $20 billion and $40 billion for a wall.

Now, if I have heard correctly what my colleagues have said over there, the walls are working already, the ones they have got. There are walls there. I

heard San Diego had three. So the idea, I guess, if one works, we will build us another one. Oh, my goodness.

This funding bill that we are talking about spending on a wall is needed to repair roads and bridges and bring down the cost of education, but the majority refuses to have debate on the AUMF, something that is critically important, life and death to many people who live in this country who are presently in the armed services. This amendment should have been included here.

And I appreciate what my colleague, Mr. Sanford, said. He is absolutely right. But if we were to get a new AUMF, it would put Congress back into its duty to declare war. That is something that the Constitution gave us that we no longer have.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentlewoman from New York for her consistent leadership. Being a frequent visitor to the Rules Committee as a Member, I want to thank the manager for the courtesies extended to all of us.

Let me say that I am a member of the Budget Committee, and I want to associate my stance with the gentlewoman from New York. We do not have a budget, but, in fact, the budget is not a roadmap that we are even attempting to do. The budget was a slash and burn

of Medicare, Medicaid, only to give tax cuts, and it had no vision but to plus-up the Defense Appropriations.

So now we come with a minibus that wants to do more damage. I have no quarrel with my friend from Texas, but it is very clear that this budget is based upon this wall, and this rule is based upon this wall. It is important for the American people to know that, while we are fighting for Medicaid and Meals on Wheels, better policing, and better education for our children, the wall that was supposed to be paid for by Mexico--let me say it again, the wall that was supposed to be paid by Mexico, as evidenced by the Commander in Chief--is now, in this rule, not for $100 million, not for $200 million, not for $50 million, but for $1,571,239,000. That is what this rule is all about.

Frankly, I believe that this is a shame. Frankly, I oppose it because the Commander in Chief swore that Mexico would pay for the wall. Now we are paying for the wall, and, as indicated, a Member of Congress from Texas who represents the area is adamantly against it. I would only argue to say that there are other needs in this minibus that the American people desire.

I also rise to express strong opposition to the fact that the Lee amendments were not put in. Congresswoman Lee had an amendment for us to debate the AUMF, two amendments, and those amendments were rejected. Let us go back to regular order and pass appropriations for the American people and debate whether we go to war. Going to war is a point for the American people to hear and discuss.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my opposition to the exclusion from H. Res. 478 of the amendments offered by colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California.

This rule makes in order 54 amendments to Division A of H.R. 3219, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018 and an amendment by Congressman Carter, the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, providing $1.57 billion in funding to begin construction of the infamous ``Trump Border Wall'' that the presidential candidate Trump promises, assured, and guaranteed American and the would be paid for by Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange indeed that the Lee Amendments, which were offered, debated, and approved in the regular order were excluded from the rule while the Carter Amendment, which was introduced at the 11th hour, was included.

Lee Amendment No. 95 would repeal the 2001 AUMF after 240 days of enactment of this Act.

Lee Amendment No. 96 does not repeal the 2001 AUMF but would prohibit the expenditure of any funds to implement, administer, or enforce the 2001 AUMF beginning 240 days of enactment of this Act.

They knew that the decision to go to war was too important to be left to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise or well-informed he or she might be.

Over the last 16 years, we have seen 3 Presidents use the 2001 Afghanistan AUMF as a blank check to engage in serious military action.

In 2016, the Congressional Research Service issued a report detailing 37 unclassified uses of this authorization in 14 countries, including for operations at Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, and recent military action in Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen.

The overly broad 2001 AUMF represents a critical deterioration of Congressional oversight, which should be repealed, rather than repeated with respect to North Korea.

As our brave service members are deployed around the world in combat zones, Congress is missing in action.

As provided under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, absent a Congressional declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force, the President as Commander-in-Chief has constitutional power to engage the U.S. armed forces in hostilities only in the case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

As a co-equal branch of government, it is Congress's right and responsibility to be fully consulted regarding any potential plans to conduct military operations in foreign lands and to assess whether such action is in the national security interest of the United States and its allies, and to withhold or grant authorization for the use of military force based on this assessment.

As we have learned from the painful and bitter experience of the past 16 years, at the initiation of hostilities, the costs in terms of blood and treasure of U.S. military interventions abroad are often underestimated and the benefits overstated.

For example, more than 6,800 American service members gave the last full measure of devotion to their country on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq, with hundreds of thousands more returning with physical, emotional, or psychological wounds that may never heal.

The direct economic cost of the war in Afghanistan exceeds $1.07 trillion, including $773 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds, an increase of $243 billion to the Department of Defense base budget, and an increase of $54.2 billion to the Veterans Administration budget to address the human costs of the military involvement in Afghanistan.

I am confident that affording Members the opportunity to debate and vote on the Lee Amendments would strengthen our democracy and help restore Congress's preeminent constitutional role in the decision to take the nation to war.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong opposition to the Carter Amendment to H.R. 3219, Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2018.

I oppose the amendment because it is ineffective, costly, and wasteful legislation for three reasons: it is costly and ineffective; President Trump broke his promise that Mexico would fund the wall; and a policy shift of this magnitude requires regular order with the Committees of Jurisdiction weighing in on the real cost to the American people should a wall be built.

First, I oppose the Carter Amendment because it is costly and ineffective.

It wastes $1.6 billion to build an unnecessary wall with our already peaceful neighbors to the south.

Only $32 million dollars of that $1.6 billion would actually go towards the wall.

That leaves over $1.5 billion simply wasted.

The wall throws away American taxpayers' money when it could and should be spent on a number of necessary initiatives like education, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure, or even military preparedness.

Second, I oppose H.R. 3219 because Trump swore Mexico would pay for the wall.

The President has broken his promise to the American people and is asking American taxpayers to foot a $1.6 billion bill for a useless, expensive wall.

No wonder the wall is strongly opposed by Democrats and many Republicans.

There is no assurance that Americans would ever be reimbursed by Mexico.

Trump's cost estimations do not include the cost of building in more treacherous terrain, access roads, maintenance, or acquiring land in Texas, where almost all border landholdings are privately held.

Building this wall would require stripping landholders in my very own home state of Texas of their private land.

Instead of wasting $1.6 billion on building a wall, that money could be appropriated to maintaining our effective border security and immigration practices, like those currently in place for asylum seekers.

The United States already enforces the most extensive immigration and border security practices in the world. We have

This is a bad business deal for the American people.

Third, I oppose the Carter Amendment because it is represents a policy shift that will have dire consequences for our economy that far exceed the $50 billion estimated cost of this wall.

A policy shift of this magnitude requires regular order with the committees of jurisdiction weighing in on the real cost to the American people should a wall be built.

Mexico happens to be one of the United States' strongest trading partners.

U.S. goods and services trade with Mexico totaled an estimated $579.7 billion in 2016.

Exports were $262.0 billion; imports were $317.6 billion.

The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Mexico was $55.6 billion in 2016.

Mexico is currently our 3rd largest goods trading partner with $525.1 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2016.

Goods exports totaled $231.0 billion; goods imports totaled $294.2 billion.

The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $63.2 billion in 2016.

Trade in services with Mexico (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $54.5 billion in 2016.

Services exports were $31.1 billion; services imports were $23.5 billion.

The U.S. services trade surplus with Mexico was $7.6 billion in 2016.

According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of Goods and Services to Mexico supported an estimated 1.2 million jobs in 2015.

Mexico was the United States' 2nd largest goods export market in 2016.

U.S. exports to Mexico in 2016 were $231.0 billion, down 2.0 percent ($4.8 billion) from 2015 but up 72.7 percent from 2006. U.S. exports to Mexico are up 455 percent from 1993 (pre-NAFTA).

U.S. exports to Mexico account for 15.9 percent of overall U.S. exports in 2015.

The top export categories in 2016 were: machinery ($42 billion), electrical machinery ($41 billion), vehicles ($21 billion), mineral fuels ($20 billion), and plastics ($16 billion).

U.S. total exports of agricultural products to Mexico totaled $18 billion in 2016, our 3rd largest agricultural export market.

Leading domestic export categories include: corn ($2.6 billion), soybeans ($1.5 billion), pork & pork products ($1.4 billion), dairy products ($1.2 billion), and beef & beef products ($975 million).

U.S. exports of services to Mexico were an estimated $31.1 billion in 2016, 1.4 percent (441 million) less than 2015, but 30.5 percent greater than 2006 levels. It was up roughly 199 percent from 1993 (pre-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breast cancer can affect both men and women.

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

Let me say that sentence again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge rejection of the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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