Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and providing for proceedings during the period from May 25, 2018, through June 4, 2018.

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member and the chairman of the Rules Committee for listening to both my concerns and the amendments that we have offered. We are very pleased to have at least 10 amendments to deal with this important legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise to thank the chair and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for the en bloc amendments.

I would like to draw particular attention to a few Jackson Lee amendments as the Congress prepares to adjourn for Memorial Day. I want to thank the men and women who serve in the United States military.

The Jackson Lee amendment offered in this year's NDAA will provide oversight with information or guidance on efforts at K-12 schools on Federal military facilities to maintain safety and security from active shooters. Just coming from my district and in the neighboring area, the Santa Fe tragedy, of which I attended vigils over the weekend and listening to children talk about being fearful of guns and going to school, has been a very difficult set of circumstances.

So the Jackson Lee amendment would, in fact, seek an assessment from the Secretary of Defense of the strategies that may be used to reduce the security threats posed by active shooter incidences at public schools and secondary schools.

Today, the DOD operates 60 schools in seven States, 26,000 military connected students, and that is a process where I think the Pentagon and the Defense Department can be very, very helpful.

Jackson Lee amendment No. 91 seeks to have a report 180 days following enactment from the Secretary of Defense, which will include the Coast Guard, on maternity mortality rates among members of the Armed Forces and the Department.

For every 100,000 births in the United States in 2013, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that 17.3 percent of mothers died, the highest mortality rate of all industrialized countries by several times over.

I believe we can be very effective in having solutions.

My amendment No. 68 considers the vital role in the National Guard and reservist field when called to service. I work with the National Guard. Mr. Chair, I thank the Texas Guard and the National Guard. I have seen them in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe it is an important assessment to continue to remind us of the work that they do, civilian soldiers, of course.

Jackson Lee amendment No. 89 provides a report 220 days after enactment on the DOD's capacity to provide survivors of natural disasters--we are still

experiencing the suffering of Hurricane Harvey, and I believe this is a major important time.

It is important as well to deal with cybersecurity, and so I have an amendment that seeks an assessment that would consider what occurred in 1992 following Hurricane Andrew when the DOD stood up emergency housing, and to look at those options.

The same thing with dealing with cybersecurity: I believe that it is important for the DOD to deal with the feasibility of creating an apprentice program to address the agency's shortages of qualified cybersecurity persons.

Let me just simply say that this legislation will be helpful in defining how we answer a lot of hard questions.

I do want to take note of the fact that I would like to see in the State Department and the DOD that we work on better relationships with Pakistan and try to discern how we can weave through some of the difficult issues that we are addressing and develop that alliance again.

My other amendments deal with raising awareness among students traveling abroad; expanding the report required by the bill to include information on the opportunities dealing with artificial intelligence, dealing with cybersecurity, sharing of Navy desalinization technology for civilian applications.

Something that I have been working on for a number of years: I just was in a meeting dealing with the impact of Boko Haram and as well its far-reaching impact throughout Africa, north Africa, and the death that it has been engaged in. My amendment will be providing for DOD assistance to the Nigerian Government in developing a missing persons database to report on missing, exploited, and trafficked persons. The DOD has provided the kind of assistance that has been allowed by our laws, but it is a horrific circumstance.

Then finally, I have an amendment addressing dangers associated with man-made space debris in low Earth orbit to manned and unmanned missions.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support our amendments. I thank those who have managed this legislation.

I think the important point I want to make sure is the active shooter; the mortality rates dealing with mothers, maternal mortality rates and the loss of mothers and the loss of children in the instance of child birth. I would ask that my amendments be accepted.

Mr. Chair, I rise to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee for the inclusion of Jackson Lee Amendments in the Rules for H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2019.

I also thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, and their staffs for working with me and my staff to include Jackson Lee Amendments in the Amendment En Blocs for H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2019.

As a Member of the House Budget Committee, I am keenly aware of the budget pressures caused by Sequestration and repeated government shutdowns that have plagued defense and non-defense agencies.

It is past time for the Congress to engage in an authentic bipartisan budget process that puts the national interest over party interest so that we can complete the annual appropriations process by September 30, 2018, and prevent any further government shutdowns.

I have several amendments to H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2019, which will be addressed in my submitted statement.

I would like to draw particular attention to a few Jackson Lee Amendments because of their importance to the people whom I serve in the 18th Congressional District of Texas, or they are of significance to the people who rely upon the resources provided by the National Defense Authorization Act to defend our nation.

As the Congress prepares to adjourn for Memorial Day weekend, I want to thank the men and women of the Armed Services, and the dedicated civilian professionals of the Department of Defense and its branches for their sacrifice and service to our nation.

I hope that in some small measure that the passage of this bill will convey to them the heartfelt respect and appreciation this body has for what they do each day to keep our nation and its people safe from harm.

The Jackson Lee Amendments offered to this year's NDAA will provide oversight with information or guidance on:

1. Efforts at K-12 schools on federal military facilities to maintain safety and security from active shooter situations;

2. Reporting on maternity mortality rates among service women, and female dependents of all service members, including the Coast Guard;

3. Raising awareness among students traveling abroad about recruitment tactics used by foreign intelligence agencies seeking to snare them into spying against the United States;

4. Readiness of the National Guard and Reserve for disaster response;

5. Defense Department's capacity to provide emergency short-term housing to disaster survivors;

6. Development of a cybersecurity apprentice program to provide on the job training for certain cybersecurity positions and to support the acquisition of cybersecurity certifications;

7. Expanding a report required by the bill to include information on the opportunities and risks associated with advancements Artificial Intelligence and its sub-discipline of machine learning;

8. Reports on cybersecurity threats posed by the achievement of stable quantum computing;

9. Sharing of Navy desalinization technology for civilian applications;

10. Condemning Boko Haram; and providing for DoD assistance to the Nigerian government in developing a missing persons database to report on missing, exploited and trafficked persons; and

11. Addressing dangers associated with man-made space debris in low earth orbit to manned and unmanned missions.

The Jackson Lee Amendments that I would like to emphasize include:

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 159, which seeks an assessment, from the Secretary of Defense, of the strategies that may be used to reduce the security threats posed by active shooter incidents at public elementary schools and secondary schools located on the grounds of Federal military installations.

Our nation's military provides for the needs of military families including the education of their children.

Since 1816, a Military Service, the Department of War or the Department of Defense has operated schools on military installations.

Today, the DoD operates 60 schools in 7 states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, New York, South Carolina and Virginia.

There are 26,000 military connected students attending Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools, which are operated by Department of Defense Education Activity, which is located in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Local Education Agencies operate about 150 public schools on military installations throughout the United States, educating about 80,000 students.

As you already know, on Friday, May 18, 2018, the community of Santa Fe, Texas became the most recent school to experience an active shooter gun violence, which took the lives of eight students and two teachers.

No parent should have to endure the loss of a child.

Over the last year we have seen deadly active shooter attacks carried out by a lone gunman at K-12 schools, where the shooter was often a student.

The safety and wellbeing of children of our active duty personnel are our responsibility.

This Jackson Lee amendment seeks information on what is being done and what can be done to increase school security against activity shooters situations in K-12 schools on military installations.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 91, which seeks a report 180 days following enactment from the Secretary of DoD, which will include the Coast Guard, on maternity mortality rates among members of the Armed Forces and the dependents of such members.

For every 100,000 births in the US in 2013 the Centers for Disease Control estimated that 17.3 mothers died, the highest maternal mortality rate of all industrialized countries--by several times over.

Between 1990 and 2015 it is reported that maternal mortality rates around the world fell by 30 percent while at the same time in the US, the ratio went up nearly 60 percent.

A 2012, Pentagon report states that mothers delivering at military hospitals are more likely to hemorrhage after childbirth than mothers at civilian hospitals.

More than 50,000 babies are born at military hospitals each year, and they are twice as likely to be injured during delivery as newborns nationwide.

This Jackson Lee Amendment would provide a clearer understanding of the mortality rates of mothers: who were pregnant, undergoing delivery, or had delivered a child less than 1 year before their deaths.

Jackson Lee amendments No. 68 and No. 89 provide additional attention to DoD disaster response.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 68, considers the vital role the National Guard and Reservist's fill when called to service in disaster response.

I thank the Texas Guard, National Guard, and Reservists as well as the active duty military personnel, including the Coast Guard who

came to the aid of victims of Hurricane Harvey.

You saved thousands of lives and Texans will be forever grateful that you answered the call to serve our nation as members of the armed forces.

Hurricane Harvey's impact in Texas is still being felt nine months later.

The storm's footprint covered over 9,000 square miles, including the city of Houston, Texas.

Hurricane Harvey dropped over 52 inches of rain in the Houston area an over 60 inches were recorded elsewhere in the state.

At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston, our nation's fourth largest city, was underwater leaving 34,575 evacuees in shelters across Texas.

Before the flood waters had receded in Houston two other monster hurricanes were bearing down on citizens living in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

The scope and magnitude of these dueling disasters tested the National Guard and Reservists in ways that were new.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 68 requires a readiness report on the National Guard and Reservists to make sure they have what they need to assist communities in need of disaster assistance during the 2018 Hurricane Season which begins June 1st.

Many Texans are still recovering from Hurricane Harvey, and the same is true of Puerto Rico residents who are attempting to recover from Hurricane Maria.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 68 improves the bill's ability to support the important mission of the National Guard and Reservists to engage in disaster response.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 89 provides a report 220 days after enactment on the DoD's capacity to provide survivors of natural disasters with emergency short term housing.

Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. in our nation's history.

During Hurricane Harvey over 300,000 structures flooded in southeastern Texas, where extreme rainfall hit many areas that are densely-populated.

At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston, our nation's fourth largest city, was underwater with 34,575 evacuees in shelters across Texas.

The storm and resulting flooding damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were destroyed.

Port Arthur residents were living in tents, after 80 percent of the city's housing was flooded by Hurricane Harvey rains, which led to acute housing needs.

The city of Beaumont lost its fresh water supply leading to the closure of hospitals and evacuation of patients to hospitals in other cities.

There were significant delays in the provision of enough hotels for all of those impacted by the storm.

However, within weeks hotel rooms were sufficient to address most housing needs for those displaced by the storm.

Unfortunately, the number of hotel rooms in Jefferson County Texas was insufficient for the demand for housing, which left residents living in tents until housing options could be found.

This Jackson Lee amendment seeks an assessment that would consider, what occurred in 1992 following Hurricane Andrew, when the DoD stood up emergency housing in the State of Florida for thousands of Floridians who lost their homes to that storm.

Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerabilities Disclosure Act, which I introduced to address the need for effective and aggressive action to deal with the threat of Zero Day Events.

A Zero Day Event describes the situation that network security professionals may find themselves when a previously unknown error or flow in computing code is exploited by a cybercriminal or terrorist.

The term ``Zero Day Event'' simply means that there is zero time to prepare a defense against a cyberattack.

H.R. 3202 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on the policies and procedures developed for coordinating cyber vulnerability disclosures.

I have previously introduced legislation to address the cybersecurity workforce shortage in the Federal government.

On that bill, H.R. 1981, Cyber Security Education and Federal Workforce Enhancement Act, establishes the process for looking outside of DHS and within its ranks to solve the shortage of cybersecurity professionals.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 97 seeks an assessment from the DoD on the feasibility of creating an apprentice program to address the agency's shortages of qualified cybersecurity professionals for certain cybersecurity positions.

There is a growing shortage of cybersecurity professionals with over a quarter-million positions remaining unfilled in the U.S. alone and a predicted shortfall of 1.5 million cybersecurity professionals by 2019.

There are additional Jackson Lee Amendments included in this bill that provide reports to the authorizing committees on a range of security and safety issues related to technology and innovation, with an eye toward the future.

The world is on the verge of significant breakthroughs in computing, space exploration, medical advancements, and innovations in medicine, engineering, and know how.

At the same time we are seeing extreme weather events that are causing significant shifts in rainfall patterns in this country and around the world that require that we invest in water management and desalinization technology to assure reliable access to abundant fresh water.

Artificial intelligence (AI), and quantum computing are rapidly changing areas of computing science that will have direct and significant implications for our economy, national defense, and our nation's security.

I have two Jackson Lee Amendments that have been adopted in En Bloc Amendments that will provide additional scope to an existing report on AI, and another report on the implications for the security of computing networks should quantum computing innovation establish more stable systems.

The current stage of computing innovation is akin to the Age of Flight at the time of the Wright Brothers.

We are in the infancy of the Computing Age, the best is yet to come, but we should be mindful of the rewards as well as the risks.

We will have aggressive programs to meet the challenge of achieving stable quantum computing because if we are not on the bleeding edge of this innovation curve, there could be dire consequences for the security of defense, civilian, private sector, and academic computing networks, challenges to our leadership in computing advancements, and we run the risk of negative economic impacts.

At best we are the first to achieve these advancements in computing, and at worse we are in second place.

I thank the Committees for including Jackson Lee Amendments Nos. 126 and 193 in the Amendment En Blocs for H.R. 5515.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 90 directs that the Secretary of DoD will provide a report 240 days from enactment of this bill on the risks posed by man-made space debris in low-earth orbit, including recommendations on remediation of such risks, and outlines of plans to reduce the incident of space debris.

Space debris encompasses both natural and artificial particles.

This Jackson Lee Amendment would address the risk of man-made space debris.

Man-made objects in Earth's orbit that may no longer serve a useful function can include nonfunctional spacecraft, abandoned launch vehicle stages, mission-related debris and fragmentation debris.

Space debris travels at speeds up to 17,500 miles per hour is fast enough a small piece of man-made debris to damage to a satellite or a spacecraft.

There are more than 20,000 pieces of debris larger than a softball or orbiting the Earth.

There are 500,000 pieces of debris the size of a marble or larger.

There are many millions of pieces of debris that are so small they can't be tracked.

NASA tracks more than 500,000 pieces of man-made space debris in Earth's orbit.

Jackson Lee Amendment seeks a report from the Secretary of Defense on the risks posed by man-made space debris, solutions for reducing risks and strategies for reducing the incidence of more man-made space debris being introduced into space.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 61 on the Rule for H.R. 5515, directs the following Secretary of Navy to submit reports to Congress on the feasibility of applying desalinization technologies to provide drought relief in areas impacted by sharp declines in water availability for both military as well as civilian purposes. (listed as No. 482 on the Rules Committee Roster)

In 2010, the United States consumed about 355,000 million gallons of water per day.

Worldwide, some 700 million people do not have access to enough clean water.

In 10 years the number is expected to more than double to 1.8 billion.

Two-thirds of the Earth's surface is water, but in fact less than 1 percent it is available for human use.

The rest of the water on our planet is either salt water found in oceans, fresh water frozen in the polar ice caps, or too inaccessible for practical usage.

While population and demand on freshwater resources are increasing, supply will always remain constant.

And although the water cycle continuously returns water to Earth, it is not always returned to the same place, or in the same quantity and quality.

This is why I offered this Jackson Lee Amendment No. 61.

It is time to plan for the future water needs of our country.

There are serious water shortages in some regions of the country and the prospects that sustained water shortages due to regional growth and climate factors may make it necessary to develop alternative sources for water intended for human and agricultural uses.

If we can harness the technology to convert ocean water into fresh water the future of cities and rural communities that depend on water can be much brighter.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 88 on the Rule for H.R. 5515, Requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress programs and procedures employed to ensure students studying abroad through Department of Defense National Security Education Programs are trained to recognize, resist, and report against recruitment efforts by agents of foreign governments.

The number of U.S. students studying abroad for credit during the 2015-2016 academic year totaled 325,339 students.

This represents just over 1.6 percent of all U.S. students enrolled at institutions of higher education in the United States and about 10 percent of U.S. graduates.

Study abroad provides opportunities to students and helps nation's economies.

A recent survey found that almost 40 percent of companies surveyed missed international business opportunities because of a lack of internationally-co competent personnel.

However, the opportunities to study in another country come with some risks.

In 2014, the FBI released a 28-minute spy film called ``Game of Pawns, '' which was based in part on the real life story of Glenn Shriver, who in 2004 was a 22-year-old studying in Shanghai.

The Michigan native found a seemingly innocent job online--writing papers on U.S.-China relations.

Over time, the job description changed.

Glenn Shriver accepted $70,000 from Chinese operatives and agreed to apply for U.S. government jobs in order to gain access to classified information. By then, the FBI was on to him.

He was arrested in 2010 and pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to spy.

He was sentenced to serve a four-year prison sentence.

At the time FBI did not say how many students had been turned into spies but said they are increasingly being targeted.

Destinations for U.S. students studying abroad include: Africa; Asia; Europe; Latin America; Middle East; and Oceania.

When 95 percent of consumers live outside of the United States, we cannot afford to ignore this essential aspect of higher education.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 88 will provide the tools and education needed to U.S. students studying abroad to help them protect themselves from attempts the recruitment tactics of foreign agents.

Thank you to the Committee for the inclusion of these Jackson Lee Amendments in the final bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 22, 2018.

Hon. Jim McGovern,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative McGovern: We write to respectfully

request that Congress reject the Trump administration's

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

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

building them would make the United States less safe. These

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

catastrophe and should not be pursued.

To justify this dangerous proposal, the Trump

administration is promoting a false narrative that the United

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

nuclear weapons by Russia. Officials allege that Moscow

believes that an American president would not respond to

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

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

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

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

administration wants to develop and deploy new low-yield

nuclear warheads on Trident II D5 missiles on Ohio-class

submarines. The administration is asking Congress for $88

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

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

W76 Life Extension Program. Yet this justification for new

Trident warheads fails on many levels:

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

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

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

The administration is in the process of rebuilding this

arsenal at an estimated cost of $1.7 trillion, with

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

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

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

serious about maintaining an unambiguously strong nuclear

deterrent.

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

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

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

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

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

has many options.

3. Nuclear war cannot be controlled. Perhaps the biggest

fallacy in the whole argument is the mistaken and dangerous

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

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

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

in kind, the conflict could stay at that level.

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

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

Shultz, Secretary of State for President Ronald Reagan,

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

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

weapons are nuclear weapons and we need to draw the line

there.'' Secretary of Defense James Mattis similarly

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

tactical nuclear weapon. Any

nuclear weapon used at any time is a strategic game

changer.''

Ultimately, the greatest concern about the proposed low-

yield Trident warhead is that the president might feel less

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

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

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

redundant. Congress has the power to stop the administration

from starting down this slippery slope to nuclear war. We

call on Congress to exercise that authority without delay.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

Former Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee; The Hon.

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

Energy & Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee,

Senate Appropriations Committee; The Hon. Gary Hart, United

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

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

Former member, Senate Armed Services Committee.

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

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

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

Former Chairman, House Subcommittee on National Security and

Foreign Affairs, Government Oversight and Reform Committee;

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

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

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

Hon. John Holdren, Former Chief Science Advisor to the

President; The Hon. Thomas Countryman, Former Assistant

Secretary of State for International Security and

Nonproliferation.

The Hon. Andrew Weber, Former Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense

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

Representative of the President for Arms Control, Non-

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

Special Representative of the President, Nuclear

Nonproliferation; The Hon. Laura Kennedy, Former US Permanent

Representative to the Conference on Disarmament; The Hon.

Steven Pifer, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and

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

Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,

U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security

Administration.

Ben Chang, Former Director for Press & Communications and

Deputy Spokesman at the National Security Council; Philip E.

Coyle, Former Associate Director for National Security and

International Affairs, White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy; Steve Fetter, Former Principal Assistant

Director for National Security and International Affairs,

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Colin

Kahl, Former Deputy Assistant to the President and National

Security Advisor to the Vice President; Richard Nephew,

Former Director for Iran for the National Security Council;

Ned Price, Former Special Assistant to President Obama and

Spokesperson for the National Security Council.

Ben Rhodes, Former Deputy National Security Advisor for

Strategic Communications, The White House; Frank von Hippel,

Former Assistant Director for National Security, White House

Office of Science and Technology Policy; Jon Wolfsthal,

Former Special Assistant to the President for National

Security and Senior Director for Nonproliferation and Arms

Control at the National Security Council; Alexandra Bell,

Former Director of Strategic Outreach in the Office of the

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International

Security; Bishop Garrison, Former adviser and Executive

Director, Homeland Security Science & Technology Advisory

Committee; Morton Halperin, Former Director of the Policy

Planning Staff, Department of State; Newell Highsmith, Former

Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 908 provides for complete consideration of H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 12, 2018.

Dear Secretary Esper: Thank you for your service to our

nation and your robust efforts to increase the readiness and

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

just begun, you are making remarkable progress on behalf of

the American soldier and our national security.

However, we would like to bring to your attention the

continued budgetary challenges of the Stryker combat vehicle

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

versatile combat vehicle and represents what may be the most

successful Army acquisition program in recent memory from

initial acquisition to the most recent upgrades. Yet there

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

FY19 budget request which once again neglects much needed

Stryker procurement and modernization.

In recent years, Congress has stepped in and ensured that

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

prevent our soldiers in the field from receiving the safety

and lethality upgrades necessary against the threats of

today's global environment. Congress has strongly supported

both the conversion of flat bottomed Strykers to the more

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

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

cannon to the Stryker infantry variant.

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

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

perplexed why the Stryker program did not seem to benefit

from this growth in investment funding, especially since it

is our understanding that the Army has an operational

requirement for additional brigades of improved Stryker (DVH)

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

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

budget in FY 19?

Congress has continually demonstrated our long-standing

support for Stryker production and we request that you do the

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

develop a plan to sustain the Stryker program.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Hurd, James B. Renacci, Gary Palmer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

McEachin, Peter T. King, Martha Roby.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charlie Crist, Denny Heck.

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

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

Mike Gallagher, Steve Stivers, Sean Patrick Maloney, Kevin

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

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

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

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

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

Calvert, Chellie Pingree.

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

Hanabusa, Tom Garrett, Brian Fitzpatrick, Martha McSally,

Warren Davidson, Devin Nunes, Steve Knight, Matthew

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

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

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

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

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

Lehtinen, Virginia Foxx.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capuano, Pete Aguilar, Barry Loudermilk, John Culbertson,

Fred Upton, H. Morgan Griffith.

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

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

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

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

Marchant, Sanford Bishop, Austin Scott, Frank LoBiondo,

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

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

Olson, Susan W. Brooks.

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

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

Williams, Stephanie Murphy, Dave Reichert, Jeff Duncan,

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

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

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

Brooks, Kevin Yoder, Tom Rice, Rick Larsen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Schweikert.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5515.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 908, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 53 printed in House Report 115-702 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

The ACTING Chair. The Clerk will report the modification.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the distinguished chair of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 55 be removed from the en bloc package.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and understand all Members' desire to not only support jobs in their district, but to support American manufacturing. I share, of course, that goal. At the same time, I must oppose this amendment because there is simply no national security justification to mandate where DOD buys its plates and mugs.

Now, there was a view in the past that textiles, food, and certain tools were essential for the health and well-being of our military and related to their combat effectiveness. It is absolutely true that we have had troops die from exposure to tainted food, and that not having the appropriate tools has had an effect on the quality of our weaponry.

I have never heard that argument apply when it comes to plates and bowls and knives or forks and spoons that we are about to discuss with the next amendment.

Mr. Chairman, adding this mandate hurts our troops because if these suppliers of plates are the best price, then that is what DOD buys. But if it costs more to buy these plates, that money has to come from somewhere. And that money will come from bullets or fuel or other things that are essential for our troops to have. I cannot tell you how many fewer bullets the Pentagon will be able to buy because they have to pay more for their bowls and plates and mugs.

I also can't tell you how much more exactly the Pentagon will expend in ensuring compliance with this mandate, to do the studies to check the quality, to have a report if they should fall in one of the exceptions, which are all there within the law. But I know it will be some.

Some money, some added bureaucracy is too much. As a matter of fact, the underlying bill is trying to go the other way and get more resources into the hands of our warfighters to increase what we send to the tooth and reduce the tail.

I would just say one other point at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Where does this stop? Where does this end?

Last year, we had knives and forks and spoons. This year, we have got plates and mugs. Does it next go to the trays that they carry their food on? What about the plastic cups that they may drink from?

Do we just keep rolling with this and go all the way to the hand soap and toilet paper in the bathroom?

I don't know where it stops. If there is not a national security justification to put this added cost and added mandate, we should not do it to our troops. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment and other amendments that are not related to national security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time simply to say: Mr. Chairman, before we add this additional burden on our troops and what we provide to them, there ought to be a scintilla of evidence that this is a problem with the military.

Saying, well, somebody might get sick some day is not sufficient to say we are going to take more money away from your needs and put it into plates and mugs. We have got to have a sense of priority and a sense of evidence of where the real problems are.

Mr. Chairman, therefore, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

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

Mr. Chairman, I again want to express my admiration for the gentlewoman from New York and her advocacy for workers and businesses in her district. But I must oppose the amendment.

The fundamental question before the House is: Are we going to inflict higher costs on the Department of Defense with a mandate that requires where the Department buys its forks and spoons and knives and plates and mugs?

That is the question.

If any of these suppliers provide the best price, that is where DOD is going to go buy them. So these amendments, both the last one and this one, only become relevant if the costs are higher and we are making DOD buy the higher-priced items anyway.

Now, as I mentioned, there may be some justification for that when there is a vital national security concern. But when it comes to forks and plates, I don't think that exists.

So the only way these amendments matter is if it forces DOD to pay more. And when it forces DOD to pay more for plates and bowls and forks and knives, then you are taking money away from bullets and fuel and guns and ships and the things that help keep America safe.

Mr. Chairman, creating domestic jobs is not the primary mission of the Department of Defense. Our focus, the Department's focus and our focus in this bill when it comes to this Congress, is to protect the Nation and to support the men and women who risk their lives for us. We have got to give them everything they need to do their job. We should not do anything that would divert from that.

So I, again, with all admiration for the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from West Virginia, I just say, if we are going to tell DOD where they have to buy their forks and knives and plates, where does it end?

I have a manufacturer, I am sure, in my district that would love to supply the Department of Defense with something or another.

We cannot go down this road. We must let the Department buy the best value. That is what I think all Members should support.

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

Mr. Chair, the men and women of NNSA are like the military: they are going to get the job done under whatever conditions are required. But this amendment affects their work environment, their health and safety, and whether we can attract and retain top-quality people. It is the people who would suffer under this; it is not the mission. I understand people are antinuclear, but it is the people who would suffer.

As both gentlemen have said, we have a tremendous backlog. This just helps us catch up a little bit.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.