H.Res. 616

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, first and most importantly, I want to concur with the remarks of Mr. Thornberry. We have had a great many people work together to produce a very important product. The staff, the Members, House and Senate, have all done an outstanding job.

On the Armed Services Committee, we are very proud of the fact that we produce a legislative product every year. We actually do legislation the way it is supposed to be done. We work it through committee. Chairman Thornberry often outlines the number of different provisions that were asked for at the committee level, at the full House level and the Senate level, and we worked through those, reached compromise where we could, and produced a product that is truly a legislative product.

That is testimony to the great work, first and foremost, of our staff. Both the House and Senate do an outstanding job with hundreds of complex issues and working with all the Members, and I thank them very much.

It is also a testimony to the Members, both House and Senate, to their commitment to make sure that we pass the National Defense Authorization Act, understanding how important it is to support our troops and meeting our national security needs.

I also want to thank our colleagues in the Senate. Mr. Thornberry and I oftentimes say those are some of our most contentious debates--not between us, but between us and the Senate. But they are handled, I think, with great dignity and intelligence, and I enjoy working with Senator McCain and Senator Reed. They are great partners in this final product.

I am proud of this final product. There is a lot of very good policy in here. Mr. Thornberry mentioned several of the keys: acquisition reform, basically getting more out of the money we spend, making sure the system works better.

I particularly want to thank Chairman Thornberry. He has taken a lead on this issue for a number of years. I think we have made significant improvements, even while acknowledging that we still have a long way to go to get the efficiency that we need out of the Pentagon budget, but that is an important change.

I also think that this bill does a great job of supporting our troops and their families. As the chairman mentioned yesterday, it is basically the case that you recruit a servicemember but you retain the family, and that means that you have to provide for them. We fully fund the 2.4 percent pay raise in this bill and support our troops and their families in many other ways. This is a very good product.

I will also say, I want to particularly thank Representative Langevin for working on this issue. This bill states that climate change is a national security threat. We make that the policy of the United States Congress, to acknowledge climate change and the impact that it is going to have on our national security, and Representative Langevin was tireless in making sure that that was part of this bill.

So this is a good product. I am proud of it. I am proud of the work that we have done together to produce a legislative product that, as Mr. Thornberry says, none of us like everything that is in it, but we reached a compromise to produce a product on an important issue.

The challenge that we have going forward is what the chairman mentioned at the end there: This bill funds, I think it is right around $696 billion in defense spending. It goes $80 billion, roughly, over the budget caps, and the bill can't do that on its own. Unless the budget caps are lifted and appropriators pass the appropriations bill, that doesn't happen; and we haven't made a lot of progress on that.

I was thinking, today, back to 2011, in August, when we first passed the Budget Control Act. We were about 2 days short of not being able to meet our debt ceiling obligations when we passed that; and at that time, the hope was that we would come together on a compromise to deal with our deficit and our debt to get us on a fiscally responsible path.

Well, over 6 years later, I can't say that we have made an enormous amount of progress on that, and that is a huge threat to our troops and our national security. I would also say that it is a threat to the nondefense discretionary budget and the rest of the budget as well.

But without question, one of the greatest challenges the Pentagon faces--they don't know from one month to the next how much money they are going to have. Is this going to be the number? Is this bill going to work?

I hope so, but we don't know. We have got to resolve that issue. We have got to figure out how to have a fiscally responsible budget so we can pass appropriations bills every year so all aspects of the discretionary budget can have some predictability.

It is absolutely true, as the chairman and others have said, we have a readiness shortfall. What that means is we are not providing the equipment and the training to our troops necessary to fully prepare them to do the missions we are asking them to do. I have no doubt that part of that is underfunding.

But another part of it is we have a National Security Strategy that is unclear and, as it is presented, is far greater than we would ever have the resources to match. I had a meeting with a Pentagon official who told me that they were very concerned because they were way short of having the funds necessary to meet their 2012 National Security Strategy.

And make no mistake about it. As big and confusing as the Pentagon may look, they have a reason for everything that they spend. They have a plan in place. Right now, we don't have the funds to match those plans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

That is a huge problem. So going forward, while we do need to provide more resources and more stability, I also think we need to take a look at that National Security Strategy and say: Where are we spending money that we shouldn't be? What part of our strategy do we not need?

If we can't do that, if we can't cut back, we are never going to be in a position to provide adequate funds to our troops, and, to me, that is the absolute worst result.

Whatever the strategy is, the one thing that it absolutely ought to do is fund our troops sufficiently to meet it. To have a big idea of what we ought to be able to do and then to underfund the men and women whom we are asking to do it, I believe, has led to some of the accidents and deaths that we have had recently with our ships and with our planes.

We need to adequately fund readiness to meet a mission that is achievable. That, we still need to get to; but, overall, this is a good policy bill.

Again, I thank the chairman. I appreciate the partnership and really enjoyed working with him to produce this product.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Readiness, for purposes of a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

As has been mentioned, this is an excellent bill that a lot of people did very good work on. I thank them for that.

The only issue I want to raise in closing is the money. That is the sticking point and the difficulty that we have.

This bill, as it is currently constructed, is $80 billion above the budget caps. In the 6 years since the budget caps passed, we have been unwilling to raise those.

But we have a larger problem. We have a $20 trillion debt. Our deficit is close to $700 billion. It has no prospect of going down anytime soon. At the same time, we have other needs.

During this debate, we focused like a laser on armed services and the needs of national security and our troops, as well we should. Those needs are incredibly important. I don't doubt that for a second. But you have to look at the whole or we are not going to be able to meet the needs of our national security and our troops. The amount of revenue that we take in as a country, unsurprisingly, impacts--or should impact--the amount of money that we can spend.

We are having this debate now. We are talking about how underfunded the military is and how badly we need to shore up our readiness. I agree with all that. The rest of this week we are going to figure out how to make sure that our government takes in trillions of dollars in less money. That is wildly inconsistent. If we believe we have these needs, we ought to be able to pay for them.

Then there are the other aspects of the budget. I know we are not supposed to talk about that during the Armed Services Committee debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, but the needs for infracture and education are things that also make our country strong, not to mention the Department of Homeland Security, the intelligence agencies, and other aspects of our national security, which are all part of the same whole.

If we are going to get to a fiscally responsible place, we can't just say defense gets whatever it wants and then let the chips fall where they may elsewhere.

On the Armed Services Committee, if we truly care about making sure that our troops have enough money, we need to do two more things in addition to this bill.

Number one, we need to argue that we shouldn't do a massive tax cut to undermine our ability to fund defense and national security.

Number two, we need to take a hard look at our national security strategy and figure out where we can save money.

If we keep looking at every single section--it is too short here; it is too short here--we do not have enough money. Even if we had a fit of fiscal responsibility and decided to make cuts elsewhere--which hasn't happened, by the way--and we decided to raise revenue instead of cutting it, even if we did that, we are still looking at needs within the national security budget. When you look at the programs that people want to fund over the next 10 years, they are wildly beyond the amount of money that we have.

We need a national security strategy that has an honest look at how much money we are going to have. Otherwise, we are not serving our troops.

I know the comeback is: How can you put a price on national security? They should get whatever they need.

The only problem with that is that they don't. If we have a national security strategy that exceeds the amount of money we have, the ones left holding the bag are our troops. They are the ones who are asked to do missions that they are not adequately trained to perform. They are the ones who are asked to train without the adequate resources to train properly.

That is what we must fund. To do that, we need to do more than just pass this bill. We need to have a fiscally responsible approach to the overall budget.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2810) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2810.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, for 55 straight years under both parties, Congress has come together to pass a defense authorization bill to support our troops and our country's security. Along with my partner on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Smith, I am pleased to bring a conference report that will do so again.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge and thank all the Members on both sides of the aisle who contributed to this product, and especially the members and staff of the House Armed Services Committee.

I also want to thank the conferees from the 14 other committees of the House who were appointed to the conference, and I appreciate their contributions.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to work with Mr. Smith and with our colleagues in the Senate, Senator McCain and Senator Reed.

We do not always agree among the four of us; in fact, we disagree sometimes energetically, but I have no doubt that each of them is committed to doing the right thing for our troops and the right thing for our country. Each of them is a patriot whom I admire.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for all Members when we wish Senator McCain the best in dealing with his current health challenges.

Members and the public were given a summary of this conference report last week, so I will simply say that I believe the priorities in this bill are, number one, our people; number two, the readiness; number three, missile defense; and number four, reform to see that we are more capable of meeting the security challenges our country faces in the future and today.

In that regard, I especially want to commend the work of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Cooper and the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on space. They initiated deep, far-reaching reforms based on a real sense of urgency, and they are in this bill. Their work exemplifies the work of our committee: bipartisan, really nonpartisan, on the national security challenges the U.S. faces today.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, as the world grew more dangerous, we cut our defense budget and we added to the burden borne by the men and women who serve us.

We will not rebuild and fix our problems in 1 year or one bill, even when it is matched by an appropriations bill, which this will need to be, but we can head in the right direction. That is what this conference report does, and I hope Members will support it.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the distinguished chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), the distinguished chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), who is a very valued member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly), who is another valuable member of our committee.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee for her work on this issue.

From my visit to Guam last year, I have seen the tremendous military buildup and military value of Guam, and I understand that more is needed as Guam remains a strategic fixture in ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Guam if she would continue to yield to me.

I agree with the gentlewoman's understanding of the provision.

Further, I support efforts to ensure that Guam has the workforce needed to maintain its strategic posture and military presence necessary to the national security of the United States. I look forward to continuing to work with the gentlewoman from Guam toward that end.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), who is a valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), who is a valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), who is another valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), who is a strong proponent of a strong national defense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who is a valuable member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, again, want to thank all the Members who have participated in this debate, and even more importantly, all the Members who have contributed to this product, especially the members of the Armed Services Committee. Truthfully, Members from both sides of the aisle throughout the House have contributed to it.

We have spent several moments here talking about a lot of the details that are in this bill. Mr. Speaker, it is a rather large bill. It covers everything from how much we pay our troops to how many ships and tanks and planes and bullets we buy, as well as what we research and various policies of the Department of Defense. So there is a lot in here.

Let me take a moment just to step back and remind everybody what this is all about. Our Constitution says one of the reasons we have a Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. As a matter of fact, I think that is the first job of the Federal Government: to defend the country, to defend our lives, and to defend our freedoms.

As a matter of fact, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says specifically it is this Congress' responsibility to build and support, provide and maintain the military forces of the United States of America. That is our job.

By passing this bill, that is how we fulfill that job. But as we have talked about, what has happened in recent years is the world has grown more dangerous. Yet we have cut the defense budget.

As a matter of fact, we are spending 18 percent less now on defense than was spent in 2010, if you measure it in real terms, apples to apples. I cannot think of another significant Federal program that has been cut nearly 20 percent over the last 7 years, yet that is what has happened in defense.

What has happened as a result of that?

Our troops have borne the burden. We are 2,000 pilots short in the Air Force today. Sixty percent of the F-18s in the Navy and Marine Corps cannot fly today.

As Mr. Wilson said, we have just seen tragic accidents in the Pacific, where 17 soldiers have lost their lives. We have had other accidents where others have lost their lives and other accidents where they have not.

The point I am trying to make is that part of the responsibility for all of that happening rests here with the Congress of the United States not fulfilling adequately, in my view, its job under the Constitution.

I would say one more thing, Mr. Speaker. I agree with virtually all of what the ranking member said about the importance of having a strategy and then resourcing that strategy. It is true.

We have not had--and there is some responsibility with administrations of both parties--a coherent strategy that holds together and resources that flow from that. We should.

The fundamental issue is that it is morally wrong to send men and women out on missions with our military for which they are not fully supported, fully trained, and equipped with the best equipment our country can provide. It is wrong for us to do it, and that is exactly what has been happening.

As I mentioned at the beginning, we are not going to turn this around in a single bill or a single year, but we can make a start. This bill makes a start.

I will absolutely agree with the gentleman from Washington and others that we can't really start to turn this around without an appropriations bill that follows it, that matches it, and that really does repair our ships and planes, increases our end-strength, and provides the training that I believe we deserve to give to the men and women who serve.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just remind everyone that there are really two reasons we do this bill. One is that we owe it to the people who risk their lives to defend us. Secondly, for the national security of the United States.

The challenges to our Nation's security have grown more ominous in recent years, certainly more complex than at any time in our lifetimes. This is, I believe, a real opportunity on a bipartisan basis to show the troops that we support them and to show adversaries and allies alike that the United States is going to stand up and defend ourselves by passing this piece of legislation and by following it up with a budget agreement and an appropriations bill that follows.

That is what I think the Constitution requires of us. I hope my colleagues will agree and support this conference report.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 616 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2874, legislation that will make flood insurance more expensive, less available, and less fair for consumers.

At the outset, let me just say that I appreciate the time and effort that Chairman Hensarling and Mr. Duffy spent in responding to my calls for bipartisanship. We sat down multiple times to discuss areas where we could find compromise and a path forward.

Although our discussions were ultimately not successful and I strongly oppose this bill, I continue to believe that flood insurance really can be a bipartisan issue. In fact, I have a long history of working across the aisle on the National Flood Insurance Program.

In 2012, I coauthored the Biggert-Waters Act with former Representative Judy Biggert, and in 2014, when FEMA's botched implementation of the premium increases called for in that law led to unintended consequences, lawmakers from across the aisle joined me once again to pass the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.

Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of Members from both sides of the aisle, I cannot support H.R. 2874 because it contains many provisions that will harm American families and businesses.

First and most importantly, the bill makes flood insurance more expensive. This bill will punish low and middle class Americans with increased premiums, surcharges, and reserve fund assessments. In the wake of a historic hurricane season that devastated so many communities, it is unconscionable that we are considering a bill that would make flood insurance less affordable. We should be focussing on providing additional disaster relief and recovery after these devastating storms, not punishing these communities with higher premiums and surcharges.

It is clear that there are those who choose to live near the coast as a luxury, but there are also those who live in floodplains who are low- and middle-income families with modest homes, including some neighborhoods that are predominantly minority. This is because of the sad history of government-endorsed racism in access to credit and in neighborhood planning that pushed minorities into the bad parts of town, which, in some cases, were bad because they were prone to flooding.

These communities also often lack the resources to make upgrades to their homes and infrastructure to guard against future flood risk and are the least able to recover after a flood. The Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans is a prime example.

Another example is Greenspoint, a business district in Houston that was one of the hardest hit by Harvey. One in three residents in Greenspoint lives below the poverty line. Families in Greenspoint were still living in water-damaged and moldy units from flooding last year when they were hit again by Harvey.

There is no simple answer to our Nation's flooding problems, but I do know that raising the premiums and racking these up on policyholders will only hurt families as well as our economy.

Second, the bill makes flood insurance less available by allowing businesses to opt out of the requirement to purchase flood insurance, even if they are a high-risk property in a flood zone.

What is more, the bill kicks out certain low-value homes from the NFIP by prohibiting coverage for any home with claims that, over the entire history of the property, following enactment, even if it changes hands, exceed three times the replacement value of the structure.

This provision is so ill-conceived that the American Bankers Association wrote: ``Cutting off such properties from NFIP coverage will likely lead to significant hardship for homeowners, lenders, and communities. As borrowers lose NFIP coverage, and especially if alternative private coverage is not available or affordable, these properties will lose value, and the risk of abandonment and/or foreclosure increases dramatically. In some flood-prone communities, this could lead to a local or regional foreclosure crisis.''

Third, the bill makes flood insurance less fair for policyholders. In the wake of this historic hurricane season, it is astounding to me that the bill does nothing to fund flood maps so that we can better protect families. Oftentimes, communities are unaware of their true flood risk; and by not providing any funding for flood maps, building in areas with no information about flood risk will only continue.

Climate change will only make these storms more frequent, stronger, and more devastating than ever before, and we must make sure that the NFIP remains available and affordable to all Americans, not make it worse.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2874, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), the ranking member of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), a leading voice on flood insurance and climate issues and a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a long time leader on flood insurance issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and someone who has been working hard to try and have a bipartisan effort on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the

gentleman from New York (Mr. King), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee who has worked a long time for bipartisanship on reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Committee on Financial Services and a strong progressive leader.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, my chairmen, Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Duffy, we did work very hard to try and get a bipartisan bill.

As I negotiated with them, every time I reached an impasse, I thought about Sandy and how hard Democrats had to work to provide support for an area that should have gotten the support of everyone in the Congress of the United States. However, there was a demand from the opposite side of the aisle that it had to be paid for. We worked very hard to give them assistance, and they still have not been made whole.

Every time I reached an impasse, I thought about Louisiana and the work that I had done after Katrina and the visits that I have made there, the people that I got to know, and what I really have learned to understand about affordability.

Every time I reached an impasse, I thought about Florida, I thought about Texas and what has happened recently with these storms.

Having worked in this way and having been a coauthor of Biggert- Waters and having been the author of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, I think I know something about storms, something about the devastation that has been caused to families and communities, and I insist on affordability.

Mr. Speaker, as Democrats and some Republicans have made clear, this is a comprehensively bad bill that is harmful for families and businesses. In the wake of one of the most disastrous hurricane seasons in history, this bill would make flood insurance more expensive, less available, and less fair for millions of Americans.

I have repeatedly stated that affordability is my top priority, which is made worse by this bill. Even with the slight revisions that the chairman has made, coverage would still be less available, and cherry- picking by the private sector would be encouraged, putting the government on the hook for the riskiest of policies.

It is important to note that the biggest challenge to the National Flood Insurance Program is its massive debt, which the bill only addresses by charging hardworking Americans more for their flood insurance. That is just not fair.

We have comprehensive support for this bill from both the private sector and from our nonprofits. I don't know about any consumer organizations that support this bill, but I do know this. I know that I worked very hard to talk about mitigation and how I thought it could be a program that the locals could be involved in with the Federal Government. I know I worked very hard talking about the repetitive occurrences that the chairman was concerned about, but I also offered alternatives to what he is advocating.

I talked about outreach and education to them, about a buyout program that they may join with and accept voluntarily. I know that I tried everything that I could. I listened to Members from both sides of the aisle, and I know that we both wanted to have a comprehensive bill that was bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we end up with this bad bill. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up the bill (H.R. 2874) to achieve reforms to improve the financial stability of the National Flood Insurance Program, to enhance the development of more accurate estimates of flood risk through new technology and better maps, to increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risks, and to provide for alternative methods to insure against flood peril, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria: the images of the human misery and the economic devastation are still clearly imprinted on our minds.

Unfortunately, we know that part of this is a result of a failed National Flood Insurance Program, which, Mr. Speaker, faced three important challenges.

First, it is a bankrupt program. It is unsustainable. Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.2 trillion, running an annual actuarial deficit of $1.5 billion. It has already received two different bailouts, for a combined total of about $25 billion.

Also, it incents and subsidizes people to actually live in harm's way.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is a government monopoly that, notwithstanding subsidized rates, still, unfortunately, has unaffordable premiums for many.

Today is a good day, Mr. Speaker, because today the House gets to vote on the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) for his leadership on the mapping reforms and reinsurance. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) for his reforms on opening up the market. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) for his tireless effort and leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.

There are a lot of good reforms in this bill, Mr. Speaker, for both taxpayers and ratepayers. Let me just briefly touch upon two.

It is an absolutely revolutionary reform, Mr. Speaker, that we can break open the government monopoly and bring in market competition, innovation competition, and more affordable rates for so many.

Milliman, one of the actuarial experts within the marketplace, released a study a couple of months ago talking about the market competition, saying: ``Based on our estimates, this would hold for 77 percent of all single families in Florida, 69 percent in Louisiana, and 92 percent in Texas,'' who all would see cheaper premiums.

We know that is not theory. It is actually happening in the market today. In the nascent part of the market that is open, people are getting hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars of savings.

One of the great tragedies that I saw in my native State of Texas, in Houston, was how few people actually took up flood insurance. Think, Mr. Speaker, if we had competition, if we had advertising, if people could roll that into their homeowner rates, how many more people would have been protected by the ravages of these hurricanes.

One more reform, briefly. We have these repetitive loss properties where people live in areas that flood over and over and over. I met a couple of families in Houston. They had three floods in 8 years. We have got to help them.

This bill provides more money for relocation, for flood-proofing, and for mitigation, than any other flood reform bill, all by 25 percent. We would prioritize these areas.

We also have to realize that if we are going to make this program sustainable, we cannot have 1 percent of the properties causing 25 percent of the losses.

Ultimately, if all we do is rebuild the same properties in the same fashion in the same location, that is neither wise nor compassionate. We have an opportunity to enact historic reforms. We should do it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and respected member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee and one of the coauthors of H.R. 2874.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), the vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and the author of the pro-consumer competition title of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip, who has a slightly different message.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), another respected member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a senior Democrat and leader on environmental issues in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, and the sponsor of the legislation, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of horrific images from Hurricane Harvey. We should never forget them. We should look at this image and say: Never again.

Yet I hear from my colleagues: Let's preserve the status quo. Let's again subsidize people to live i harm's way.

I say no, Mr. Speaker. It is time to get these people out of these neighborhoods. Let's help them. That is why

this bill has more money for mitigation and relocation than has ever been in any flood insurance reform bill.

I hear my ranking member say that she cares about affordability. Then let's give people options.

I hear from people who say: NFIP would have cost me $2,700 a year, but I was able to find private coverage for $718.

Here is another one: I have benefited from switching to private market flood insurance from FEMA. I save about $1,000 a year.

Let's save money. Let's save premiums. Let's save lives. Let's vote ``aye'' on the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, first, I have some good news for my friend on the other side of the aisle. I would have him pay very careful attention to title VI of the 21st Century Flood Reform Act. It has everything to do with the whole Sandy appeals process. We have 25 pages of reforms dealing with what the gentleman was describing, including Section 601, Penalties for Fraud and False Statements in the National Flood Insurance Program.

And, indeed, after Sandy, many of the policyholders were wronged and there was much that we learned from that experience, and we tried to listen very carefully to a number of our colleagues from New Jersey and New York and, indeed, took many of the provisions which they have suggested.

The gentleman from New Jersey, indeed, has some very legitimate issues and concerns. Many of them, I hope and trust, have been addressed in this

bill. It is not too late. I would urge the gentleman to look at that title IV of the bill and perhaps he would be encouraged to support it.

Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I must urge rejection of the motion to recommit because, as you heard from the gentleman from New Jersey, he says it is all about delay. We can't delay getting people out of harm's way. We can't delay getting people out of neighborhoods that have flooded four, five, six, seven times in the last 8 years.

For those who can't afford flood insurance, we can't delay getting them market alternatives, where, in the 2 percent of the market that exists today, particularly in Pennsylvania, there are people that are not just saving hundreds of dollars, Mr. Speaker, but even thousands of dollars. We can't delay.

We know that this is a program that is unsustainable. It is a bankrupt program that is being funded, regrettably, by a bankrupt nation. Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.2 trillion and an annual deficit of $1.5 billion of actuarial deficit a year.

This thing isn't just broke, Mr. Speaker, it is bailout broke. We can't delay. We can't delay trying to put this back on a path of sustainability so the next time we have a serious storm or superstorm, we want there to be funds available to actually pay claims.

So, no, Mr. Speaker, we cannot delay. We cannot delay, and we cannot continue to do what we have done in the past in these repetitive loss areas and have our hands unclean by putting people back in the exact same neighborhoods that haven't just caused the loss of their property, but one day may very well cost the loss of their lives. We cannot delay.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a rejection of the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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