Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, and providing for proceedings during the period from June 29, 2018, through July 9, 2018.

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment indicates that no funding in this act shall be used or otherwise made available by this act to end Reserve Officers' Training Corps, ROTC, programs at HBCUs, Hispanic- Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

I want to emphasize this program because so many of us have these colleges in our congressional districts. Those ROTC programs provide training to college students to prepare them for future service in the branches in the U.S. military, the Army, Air Force, and Navy.

Coming from the State of Texas, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, with my interaction with so many in the United States military, those who have said that it is a pathway to leadership and success, I know how important these programs are.

The Army ROTC alone provides $274 million in scholarship money to more than 13,000 students. It is interesting to take note of the fact, as it relates to African Americans and Hispanics, the leadership that has come from these programs: Andrew P. Chambers, lieutenant general, retired; George A. Alexander; Colonel Claude A. Burnett; Colonel Derrick W. Flowers; Colonel Senodja Sundiata-Walker, currently serving as the chief of program support branch.

These are all individuals who have been the beneficiaries of ROTC programs at HBCUs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her remarks and concern. I believe that the military has great interest in the ROTC program and particularly in recruitment in HBCUs and Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

Let me also say, however, Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to emphasize my commitment to PTSD funding. I want to ensure as we go forward that we will increase the PTSD funding. I am interested in it being increased in particular by $5 million, but I know there are other amendments that would increase it even more.

If we know the suffering from those who have PTSD as I have, this is something that I have worked for, fought for, and advocated for. The reason, Mr. Chairman, is I see it every day.

My amendment would focus on the needs of those who want to live a normal life with post-traumatic stress disorder. Our soldiers are still coming back from places like Syria. We know they have come back from Afghanistan and Iraq, but they are still fighting there. And PTSD, recently diagnosed in these wars, to give these people the ability to be with their family, to be able to have positions because the treatment is there, to regain their life because what they have seen from the bloodshed of IEDs and the tragedies of war warrant this support of post-traumatic stress disorder funding.

So I want to make note of that on the Record, of my support and the support for the increase. I close by saying I ask for those in support of the Jackson Lee amendment dealing with the ROTC, HBCUs, Hispanic- Serving and Tribal Institutions. It is a valuable program and a valuable use for that program to recruit more people from those communities.

Mr. Chairman, I ask support for the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order for consideration of ``H.R. 6157, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019.''

I also thank Chair Kay Granger and Ranking Member Peter J. Visclosky for their work in bring the Defense Appropriations bill before the House for consideration.

This Jackson Lee Amendment is No. 1 on the Second Rule for H.R. 6157 and provides that no funding in this Act shall be used or otherwise made available by this Act to end Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs at HBCUs, Hispanic Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

ROTC provides training to college students to prepare them for future service in branches of the U.S. military: the Army, Air Force, and Navy.

The Army, Navy, and Air Force ROTC programs are annual scholarship awards, which combined, are the nation's largest scholarship grantors.

The Army ROTC alone provides $274 million in scholarship money to more than 13,000 students each year, according to the U.S. Army Cadet Command.

Nationally about 12,000 high school seniors compete for about 2,000 Army ROTC scholarships.

About half of these are three-year scholarships, and the other half are four-year scholarships

Once students reach college, they can explore specific military branches by enrolling in ROTC programs provided by the Army, Navy, or Air Force.

ROTC programs train future officers to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

To students who qualify, the ROTC programs offer scholarships that cover the cost of their education.

In exchange, students make a commitment to maintain academic excellence and later to fulfill active duty services in their chosen branch of the Armed Forces.

ROTC programs reward academic excellence to students attending HBCUs, Hispanic Servicing Institutions, and Tribal Colleges by providing a path to military service.

I ask my Colleagues in the House to support this Jackson Lee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

List of HBCUs With Navy ROTC Programs

Clark Atlanta University (Georgia)

Dillard University (Louisiana)

Florida A&M University

Hampton University (Virginia)

Howard University (Washington DC)

Huston-Tillotson University (Texas)

Morehouse College (Georgia)

Norfolk State University (North Carolina)

Prairie View A&M University (Texas)

Savannah State University (Georgia)

Southern University and A&M College (Louisiana)

Spelman College (Georgia)

Tennessee State University

Tuskegee University (Alabama)

Xavier University (Louisiana)

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) With Army ROTC

Alabama A&M University

Alcorn State University

Bowie State University

Central State University

Elizabeth City State University

Florida A&M University

Fort Valley State University

Grambling State University

Hampton University

Howard University

Jackson State University

Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)

Lincoln University (Missouri)

Morgan State University

Norfolk State University

North Carolina A&T State University

Prairie View A&M University

Saint Augustine's College

South Carolina State University

Southern University and A&M College

Tuskegee University

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff

Virginia State University

West Virginia State University

Learn How People Have Gained From ROTC Leadership That Lasts a Lifetime

LTG (Ret) Andrew P. Chambers, Lieutenant General, U.S.

Army, Retired

LTG (Ret) Chambers graduated from Howard University and

Commission as an Infantry Officer in 1954. After 35 years of

service LTG Chambers retired from the Army in 1989. He then

held the position of Director of Industry Operations for the

Association of the United States Army, later assumed the role

of Director of Community Services for AmeriCorps and then

served as Vice President of University of Maryland University

College Europe, retiring in 2005

LTG (Ret) Chambers passed away on June 3, 2017 (age 86) and

was buried with full military honors at Arlington Nation

Cemetery.

MG (Ret) George A. Alexander, Former Deputy Surgeon

General, Office of the U.S. Army Surgeon General, HQS,

Department of the Army

MG (Ret) Alexander is an active alumni and strong supporter

of the Howard University Army ROTC Program. He graduated from

Howard University College of Medicine in 1977 and was

commissioned in 1979.

COL Claude A. Burnett

Currently serving the Chief of the Department of Obstetrics

and Gynecology and Acting Chief of the Division of Surgery at

Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany

COL Burnett graduated from Howard University with a BS in

Chemistry and received his commission in 1992. He went on to

obtain his medical degree from Meharry Medical College in

Nashville, TN.

COL Derrick W. Flowers

Currently the G-8/Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for

Resource Management, Headquarters, US Army Medical Command,

for Sam Houston, TX.

COL Flowers received his Bachelor of Business

Administration Degree in Accounting and commission as a

Medical Services Corps officer from Howard University in

1990.

COL Senodja F. Sundiata-Walker

Currently serving as the Chief of Program Support Branch,

Washington D.C.

COL Sundiata-Walker graduated and received her commission

from Howard University as a Military Intelligence Officer in

1995.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment No. 14.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our Nation safe.

My amendment, and I appreciate the opportunity in presenting it, is identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted last year to the Defense Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2018, H.R. 3219. My amendment increases funding for Defense Health Program research and development by $10 million. These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United States military.

Mr. Chairman, I am a breast cancer survivor, and the relief of the care and cure is one that you cannot imagine. Just imagine being in the United States military and being diagnosed. These funds are important to increase that research to help our men and women in the United States military.

The American Cancer Society called several strains of breast cancer a particularly aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates. In this instance, it is triple negative breast cancer. That is one that is deadly, more so than many other types, and I have seen close friends, my neighbor, succumb to triple negative breast cancer.

This increased funding should be and, hopefully, will be utilized to do important research in that area. This was evidenced by an article, ``Fighting a Different Battle: Breast Cancer and the Military.''

Breast cancer can affect both men and women. The bad news is that breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. Breast cancer has been just about as difficult to overcome as well. More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer, just between the years 2000 and 2011. According to the same study, more are expected as it grows.

The good news is that we have been working on it and, therefore, much progress has been made.

The Jackson Lee amendment will allow the additional research on, as I said, devastating triple negative breast cancer. That research is particularly needed since women are joining the armed services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to leadership.

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

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

So I ask my colleagues to remember that there are many challenges for those who serve in the United States military. Health is one of them.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, let me thank the chairwoman for acknowledging the importance of the research that is already established. I want to reemphasize that, in the midst of breast cancer research, there will be a focus on many subtypes, if you will, one of them including triple negative breast cancer.

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

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted last year to the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2018 (H.R. 3219).

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

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

As a Member of Congress, a mother, a sister and a spouse, and a breast cancer survivor, I feel a special responsibility to do all I can to ensure every American can win in the fight against all types of breast cancer but especially triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Breast cancer can affect both men and women.

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

Let me say that sentence again.

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

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

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

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

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14, however, will allow for the additional research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

statistics on african american women and breast cancer

In 2013, the American Cancer Society Surveillance and Health Services Institute estimated that 27,060 black women would be diagnosed with the illness.

The overall incidence rate of breast cancer is 10 percent lower in African American women than white women.

African American women have a five-year survival rate of 78 percent after diagnosis as compared to 90 percent for white women.

The incidence rate of breast cancer among women under 45 is higher for African American women compared to white women.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer:

Accounts for between 13 percent and 25 percent of all breast cancer in the United States;

Onset is at a younger age;

Is more aggressive; and

Is more likely to metastasize.

Currently, 70 percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.

African American women are 3 times more likely to develop triple- negative breast cancer than White women.

African-American women have prevalence TNBC of 26 percent vs. 16 percent in non-African-American women.

African-American women are more likely to be diagnosed with larger tumors and more advanced stages of breast cancer.

Currently there is no targeted treatment for TNBC exists.

Some researchers theorize that higher rates of triple negative tumors among young African American Women may be explain, to some degree, the poor prognosis of breast cancers diagnosed.

Not knowing if you have Triple Negative Breast Cancer is the biggest threat to health.

Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment.

There continues to be a need for research funding for biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trial designs that will lead to the early detection of TNBC and to the development of multiple targeted therapies to treat this awful disease.

The dedication of funding for research into breast cancer is the right track, we're on the right road.

The expansion of women in the military, makes this area of DoD research particularly important to addressing the real breast cancer risk posed to our women in uniform.

Today women make up around 15 percent of all service personnel in the combined branches of the French military.

Women are 11 percent of the Army forces, 13 percent for the Navy, 21 percent of the Air Force and 50 percent of the Medical Corps.

In 2015, All U.S. military combat positions were opened up to women.

The fighting capacity of the military is linked to the health and wellbeing of women throughout the armed services.

We can offer another tool in the work to keep the women of the military healthy and free of breast cancer through development of test that can detect the disease in its earliest stages and treatments that increase survival rates should breast cancer be contracted.

I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding H.R. 6157, the ``Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019,'' to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14 increases funding for the PTSD by $5 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14 recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human, who live their experiences.

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

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14 will help ensure that ``no soldier is left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country.

I urge all Members to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 964 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 964, which provides for the consideration of additional amendments to H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense Appropriations

Act for fiscal year 2019. This rule makes in order an additional 29 amendments: 8 Republican, 16 Democratic, and 5 bipartisan amendments.

Mr. Speaker, as we discussed on this floor yesterday and many times previously, providing funding that our men and women in uniform need to defend this great Republic is by far the most important responsibility we have as Members of the United States Congress. Today's rule gives us the opportunity to get the input and hear the voices of additional Members as we listen to and consider their amendments to H.R. 6157.

In the National Defense Strategy that was released late last year, Secretary Mattis described the situation facing our Armed Forces this way: ``Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the longstanding rules-based international order--creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory.''

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would say more than any that we have lived through and any that we have existed in since World War II.

Without the kind of sustained and predictable investment that appropriations bills and the appropriation process needs, we will simply not be able to restore readiness to modernize our military or to maintain our strategic advantage. We will rapidly lose our ability to project our forces as well as our military advantage.

We cannot allow that to happen. The rule and the underlying bill that we are debating today are both crucial steps to continue the progress that we have already made and crucial steps toward ensuring that the commitment that we made in order to provide 2 years of funding for our men and women in uniform is kept.

This bill helps provide the very resources and modernization that the National Defense Strategy said were so crucially needed. We have to make sure that our Department of Defense can provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our Nation.

Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, gives us the opportunity to debate this important piece of legislation and get the input from Members of this body who would like to make it even better.

One of the amendments, Mr. Speaker, made in order by this rule was offered by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members. It would allow the Department of Defense to dual buy CVN-80 and CVN-81. These are our next two aircraft carriers. The Navy has stated that this dual buy authority could likely save taxpayers $2.5 billion on these two aircraft carriers.

This amendment serves two purposes. It helps ensure that we are using taxpayer resources wisely, and it helps move us toward the Navy's necessary and stated goal of a 355-ship Navy.

There are several other good amendments, Mr. Speaker, made in order by this rule, some that I probably won't support. But the rule takes serious ideas about how we can strengthen the Nation's Armed Forces, how we can make the defense of this Nation our priority, and brings them to the floor of this House for our consideration.

I look forward to considering each amendment and completing the Defense Appropriations process in this House. The work we are doing here is vital, but it is only part of the job, Mr. Speaker. We have to pass the appropriations bill through this body, and then we have to make sure that our colleagues on the other side of this building, our colleagues in the Senate, do the same. We can't hold funding for our military hostage to other priorities, even for additional domestic spending. We simply must provide reliable funding at necessary levels for the men and women in uniform who are putting their lives on the line for all of us.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule that will allow consideration of additional amendments to H.R. 6157.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this House actually is going to be taking up a bill that addresses these issues. Mr. Goodlatte's bill will come up within the next hour or so here on this floor. The bill itself would require that the Department of Homeland Security maintain the care and custody of aliens together, with their children, as well as providing funding for DHS family residential centers.

So I think that it is fair to say that there is bipartisan concern for the plight of these children, the plight of these families. I think all of us who are mothers understand the emotions involved here and understand that we don't want to perpetuate a situation that, in fact, also was occurring when President Obama was in office.

But I think it is also important to note that we have got to secure our border and we have got to be in a position where we are recognizing that people who come here illegally cannot be allowed to stay. People who come here illegally must, in fact, be deported, must, in fact, be apprehended.

We need to end, as we have, the practice of catch and release that we saw during the Obama administration. It is a security issue for us.

The pain and the emotion that we all feel for the families that have been separated I think we all also feel for the angel families, the families that President Trump has met with, the families that have been the victims of violence perpetuated by people who have come to this country illegally.

So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is absolutely the wrong thing to do, as my colleague urges the notion that we should defeat this rule so that we can address immigration. It just simply is wrong on a procedural matter. We ought to, in fact, support this rule, pass this rule, not once again hold hostage the men and women in uniform to another issue.

The position of the minority here is apparently that we should stop our bipartisan process and our bipartisan movement on funding the troops so that we can take up an issue that we are already planing to take up. It is not necessary and it is unjustified. I actually would urge exactly the opposite of my colleague from the Rules Committee. We ought to, in fact, pass this rule.

Mr. Speaker, as we think about this issue, we have got to remember that there are families involved not just with respect to the issue of immigration; there are families involved with respect to the men and women who are defending all of us.

I don't think that it is acceptable, I don't think it is justifiable, for us ever to be in a position where we are telling the mother or the father or the spouse of a servicemember that we couldn't get them the funding they needed because our process is broken, that we couldn't get them the funding that they need because we are bickering with each other. I think that is, in fact, absolutely an abrogation of our constitutional responsibilities and duties.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who is vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would thank my colleague very much for her son's service in our Armed Forces, and I would also just note that we agree. We don't think that our military servicemembers' salaries should be held hostage for any issue, no matter the issue. That is why we in this body believe we should pass a stand-alone Defense Appropriations bill. That is why we believe that we ought to pass the rule that we are debating today, so that we can get to the debate and the discussion about the stand-alone Defense Appropriations bill. That is why we believe the Senate should take it up and pass it that way as well.

We shouldn't add any legislation to it. The funding that our men and women in uniform need should not be made a situation where it is held hostage to other political issues. It is simply not justifiable, no matter the issue.

I would note once again, Mr. Speaker, and this is crucially important, that one of the fundamental values that our men and women in uniform are fighting for and defending is the rule of law, and for too long in the previous administration we had policies like catch and release that were sanctioned from the top. We had policies like sanctuary cities that were sanctioned from the top. We had situations, Mr. Speaker, where the laws of the Republic that were passed by this body, passed by the Senate, signed into law by the President, were simply not enforced. That is not a situation that we can allow to continue.

I think it is important that we address the issue of the separation of families at the border. No one wants to see that happen or that continue. I think we need to focus on it. We need to make sure that we come up with solutions for it, like the kinds of solutions that are going to be presented on this floor shortly.

I think, as we do that, we have also got to remember the larger issues involved, including the security of the Nation. That is not just about the resources that this bill provides; it is also about making sure that our borders are secure.

One of the things that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to deal with and to address time and again is funding for a border wall. President Trump has made clear that part of securing this Nation is providing funding for a border wall. That is something that we have got to make sure we appropriate. That is also something that the bill that we will consider this afternoon does.

I am hopeful that we will see support from the other side of the aisle for a bill that deals with the issue of separating children from families at the border.

I also would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this House has been very dedicated and focused and very active in dealing with the issue of human trafficking. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know very well that many of the situations we are seeing at our border that involve children are not family situations. They are situations where those children are brought here by human traffickers. Those children are brought here to be exploited. That is something we have got to make sure we protect against.

When we as a nation allow sanctuary cities to continue to exist, when we look the other way and say we won't enforce our immigration laws, we are, in fact, perpetuating a system where those children are put at risk, and we are not doing our duty, our fundamental obligation, to protect and defend those children.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the concern for the children of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were as broad as it needs to be, to encompass, frankly, all of the threats that these kids are facing.

I think it is important that we pass this rule, we pass this underlying bill, and we move on to address and focus on the issue of immigration in a way in which Members on both sides of the aisle can agree.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I agree that the court determination, essentially rejecting the Korematsu decision yesterday, was the right one. And we agree that the episode in our Nation's history, in which we were holding Japanese Americans in internment camps, was a dark one and was something that should not have happened. But I think that it is unjustifiable, and I think, frankly, it just politicizes the challenge that we are all facing to compare the current situation at our borders with Japanese internment camps, or with concentration camps, or many of the other exaggerations and, I think, highly irresponsible language that we have heard throughout this debate.

We all have to come together to solve the problem, but we have to come together to enforce our laws. If, in fact, my colleagues are interested in enforcing the laws, if they are interested in solving the problem for the families at the border, and if they are interested in closing the loopholes in the law that have resulted in the separation of those children, then I assume that they will be voting in favor of Mr. Goodlatte's bill that will be coming up for consideration today.

I would also say, Mr. Speaker, it is not accurate for our colleagues to say that families seeking asylum are having their children ripped out of their arms. Anybody who is seeking asylum, who goes to a port of entry, is not going to be subject to prosecution and will not be separated from their families.

I think it is very important for us to make clear that we are talking about people seeking to come into this country illegally, and, in many cases, as I mentioned before, we are talking about children who are being trafficked. We have to make sure, as we deal with this issue and as we come to a resolution and a solution that will help these kids, that, in fact, we do it in a way that addresses the facts.

Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we focus back on the issue that we are here to talk about today, and that is Defense Appropriations.

What we have seen this afternoon is the same thing that we seem to see every time this bill comes up. This is a really important, really good bipartisan bill, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk about everything under the Sun, apparently, except Defense Appropriations.

If we don't get Defense Appropriations right, if we don't get it passed through this House and passed through the Senate and signed before September 30, we are looking at the possibility of another continuing resolution for the Defense Department.

Now, we have seen this happen before. We saw it happen last year. We watched the Democrats in the Senate, for example, shut down the government because they wanted to hold our troops hostage, because they were in a position where they wanted to do everything possible except just pass Defense Appropriations.

Tragically, Mr. Speaker, this isn't just a matter of words like ``readiness,'' ``modernization,'' and ``capability.'' Those words all matter. But there are real men and women behind those words, and families behind them.

So when we are in a situation where we abrogate our duty, and we don't provide the funds that our men and women in uniform need, we end up putting the lives of our servicemen and -women on the line. I don't think that any Member of this body ever wants to be in a situation again where the Secretary of Defense, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or the service chiefs come in and say that we, as a body, have done more damage to the military than any enemy has in the field. That is what we have heard consistently and repeatedly over the course of the last several years.

Taking the step of passing this rule and making sure that we pass this underlying appropriations bill is a crucial part of continuing on the path of fulfilling the commitment that we made and fulfilling the commitment that the President of the United States made that he would rebuild our military.

Every man and woman in uniform, who puts the uniform on, as Secretary Mattis has said, is essentially writing a blank check to this Nation, and it is a blank check that is payable with their lives. We ought to stop spending our time on this floor debating a whole bunch of other things. The Senate ought to stop spending its time stuck in the filibuster rule, stuck in the process of going on and on for hours and hours over matters that, frankly, don't have anywhere near the importance that funding our troops does, and they ought to move to get this bill passed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 6157.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her support of our missile defense programs. I agree with her support for these capabilities. I fully commit to working with her during the conference process to ensure both the missile defense tracking system and the laser scaling technologies for boost-phase ICBM missile defense are funded in the conference report.

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

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while I will not oppose the amendment, I will urge caution about proposals that limit the department's flexibility to adapt to changes in its need in the ROTC program.

I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to this matter. We respect the dedication and accomplishments of all National Background Investigations Bureau workers, including the hard work of the staff in Butler County, Pennsylvania. There is currently a backlog of more than 700,000 pending security clearance cases.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told my subcommittee that the Air Force has 79,000 people still waiting for security clearances, and that number has almost doubled in the last 18 months. We want to work with your office to make sure we address that as much as possible, and I look forward to your continuing partnership in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.

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

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Frankel of Florida

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, women have a larger presence in our military today than ever before, with more than 200,000 women serving in Active-Duty military. Women serve as leaders in all jobs and in all branches of the military. Women have served in every conflict from the American Revolution to the current war on terror.

From their early days as cooks and nurses to the combat roles they fulfill today, the roles of women have evolved with the military. So I am pleased to support this amendment, which will continue to further the growth of our 21st century women warfighters.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this critical weapons system, and I want to assure him that the committee supports the continued production of Tomahawk missiles.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman is correct. The committee increased funding for Tomahawk production 2 years in a row. Using this funding for other purposes is contrary to congressional direction, and this is the second year in a row that the Navy has blatantly disregarded our instructions. The action by the Navy led the committee to recommend a rescission of prior year funding for Tomahawks.

Despite this rescission, the committee remains supportive of additional Tomahawk production and is

awaiting a revised plan from the Navy on how they will spend the previously appropriated funding for missile production.

I assure the gentleman from Utah that the committee will revisit this issue in conference, when the Navy indicates affirmatively they will use additional funding solely for missile production.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for raising the issue of off-base infrastructure. I know the gentleman has been working on this issue since his first days in Congress, and I commend his dedication.

I appreciate that the authorizing committee has given us a tool to begin to address this problem. Unfortunately, we don't yet know the full scope of the challenge. Before we can appropriate funds to a program like the Defense Community Infrastructure Program, we need more information to define the priorities and ensure that the most urgent needs are met.

Mr. Chair, yes, I can commit to working on this issue if the gentleman can give me the details on the scope of what we need to solve.

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

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Rosen

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Defense is responsible for defending the homeland and U.S. interests from attack, including attacks that may occur in cyberspace. This is an important mission and one that this bill prioritizes by providing $8 billion across the entire cybersecurity landscape.

Our Nation's cybersecurity posture starts with our cybersecurity professionals. The gentlewoman's amendment provides an additional $5 million to ensure that we continue to have the most qualified and highly trained cybersecurity professionals in the world.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, as discussed yesterday on the Allen-Raskin amendment, I support the work of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Office. They perform tireless work to track, locate, and recover our fallen heroes, and I thank them for their continued efforts.

That is why the base bill already includes $10 million above the budget request. I supported the Allen-Raskin amendment yesterday, which provides an additional $10 million above the request. This amendment provides $10 million, which will support continued efforts to return our fallen heroes home where they belong.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the military and society at large must do more to change the stigma of sexual assault so victims are not afraid of retaliation when coming forward and reporting the crime.

This bill provides $318 million for sexual assault prevention and response programs at the service level and at the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program. This is $35 million above the President's request.

I understand this amendment funds a report required by the 2019 House-passed National Defense Authorization Act, to which we do not object.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to reverse a justified reduction made by the committee to the request for the AMRAAM missile program.

Both the Navy and the Air Force, historically, overestimate the cost of the missile in their budget request. In the last 5 years, this overestimation has been 12 percent, on average. The fiscal year 2019 request assumes a unit cost that is 16 percent more than the most recent contract.

For several years in a row, Congress has adjusted the budget request for this program to account for these overestimates and other facts of life, such as production delays. In fact, the delivery schedule for this program has been revised 25 times since 2011, and the production of new guidance system components is 21 months behind schedule.

The Department, itself, has frequently sought to take savings from the AMRAAM program for other priorities. For example, the Air Force has, 5 years straight on, sought approval to reprogram a total of $57 million of this program to other needs. This is in addition to the reductions that have been taken by Congress. It, therefore, defies the facts to claim that this program is being underfunded.

Because of the long time it takes the Department of Defense to put together its budget request, these requests do not always reflect the most current information. The committee takes commonsense reductions when they will do no harm to national security.

I must add that this is precisely the sort of commonsense reduction to the President's budget that enables us to accommodate the priorities of Members of this body. This year we received approximately 6,600 such requests.

The committee will continue to engage with the Navy and Air Force on this program and make adjustments as needed. This amendment, however, would restrict our ability to ensure that the priorities of this body are reflected in the final bill.

Mr. Chair, I, therefore, oppose the amendment and urge its rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, as I have stated, these sorts of commonsense adjustments to the President's budget request must be made to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars and accommodate higher priorities, including Member priorities.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides a modest increase in the training budget for the Special Operations Command. Like my colleague, I want to make sure that our soldiers are able to deal with any contingency that may confront them.

Our Special Forces deploy to some of the most austere and unique environments in the world. We should do all that we can to ensure their success.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern. This amendment would increase funding in the defense health program account, aiming to improve coordination between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, as both agencies study the effects of toxic exposure to burn pits.

It is important to both Departments to be aware of what the other has done

in this important area of research, therefore, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I have no objections and am prepared to accept it.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns. The Department is currently funding several research projects related to the potential health effects of open-air burn pits and burn pit exposure, such as pulmonary fibrosis, lung and respiratory issues, and metals toxicology.

I believe this research is important. I don't have any objection to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern to provide adequate funding for the Fisher House Foundation. The Fisher House Foundation is a nonprofit organization that provides temporary lodging for military family members when confronted with the illness or hospitalization of their servicemember.

The bill already includes $5 million for the department to grant to the Fisher House Foundation and allows each service to transfer up to $11 million for Fisher House operations.

I am pleased to accept the amendment to provide additional funding for the Fisher House, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this bill includes $130 million for the peer-reviewed breast cancer research program. I believe this research is very worthwhile. I do not have any objection to the gentlewoman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of innovation and bringing fresh ideas to the department. I support efforts that will deliver promising new technologies and provide our troops with a technological edge to prevail. However, I don't support efforts aimed at building empires under the guise of innovation.

The amendment seeks to reverse a justified reduction made by the committee to the Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental, DIUx. For fiscal year 2019, DIUx proposed to double its budget compared to last year without sufficient justification. This proposed increase was aimed at doubling the size of the program office, along with significant increases for office space and a generous travel budget.

I need to better understand how DIUx will fit into the department's new research and engineering organization and how it will maximize innovation for the warfighter before increasing funds for DIUx.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my ranking member.

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I support efforts to bring innovation and new capabilities to the warfighter. However, the DIUx unit appears more focused on building its own program office rather than delivering capability.

I do not believe additional funding for DIUx is justified at this time. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, improvised explosive devices continue to be used by terrorists against our forces, which is why the bill includes $150 million for technologies to combat terrorism, including investments to counter improvised explosives. The additional funds will be helpful to develop technologies to help protect our troops.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's dedication to this issue, and I also thank him for his previous service in the Army as an explosive ordnance disposal technician.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that cybersecurity is a very important national security issue. The scholarship program will help in attracting and retaining a cyber workforce. I appreciate the gentleman's dedication the issue.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order 29 amendments to H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019. The underlying legislation is the product of bipartisan negotiations, which have been going on for months. Bipartisan negotiations are a really good thing, and I am glad that, on this one issue, we are finding ways to work together.

In particular, I want to recognize the work that Representative Aguilar, Representative Hurd, and many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been doing to create a path forward and look for a solution to President Trump's self-created Dreamer crisis. That is what we are supposed to be doing here: working together to solve problems.

Unfortunately, this Republican leadership doesn't believe in working with the other side. They are only interested in negotiating with their own. So it is not surprising that it isn't going very well. That is why they pulled their own immigration bill last week.

Maybe the Republican leadership, which has blocked the bipartisan Dream Act time and time again, and which has blocked the bipartisan USA Act time and time again, should trust their Members to craft and vote on compromise legislation.

But they don't have the courage or the vision to do that, do they?

Now we have another crisis, which, again, the President has created, a crisis that has outraged our constituents. Thousands of children, even infants and toddlers, are ripped from their parents at our southern border, children who have done absolutely nothing wrong, children who did not choose to come here on their own, kids too young to know the name of the country that they came from, too young to know what asylum is, too young to know what illegal entry means. Some of these kids only know two words: ``mom'' and ``dad.''

We have heard the recordings of these children crying out for their parents while being made fun of. Many of us have visited the detention centers, and it is heartbreaking and it is unnecessary.

So, while I congratulate the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on the defense bill, I have to remind the Speaker that we have 95 days to finish our work for funding the Federal Government. But I would challenge my colleagues to imagine one day, a single day, without their child, unsure if they would ever see them again.

We have some time to do the defense bill, but on the issue of family separation, we cannot afford to wait another day. Congress should be addressing this crisis today. It is not going to be easy. This administration clearly did not think through this policy that they have created.

Right now, we have children in HHS care, but where are their parents? Some are in custody of the U.S. Marshals or ICE, already deported, or maybe some are free on bond.

HHS said yesterday that they were not reuniting kids with their parents who are in detention. What does that mean? Are they going to be free? If not, what is the plan?

Let's look at the best-case scenario: a parent who gets out on bond and goes to HHS and asks for their child is told, ``Show us your documents. Prove you are really the parent,'' and this parent who has been in custody has nothing.

Where is the plan to help these parents obtain their documents? Where are these plans to help these children reunite with their parents?

Does the administration even know where all the parents are and how they are supposed to be reunited with their kids?

How are they keeping track of the babies, the babies who are simply too young to even know their name?

We have many unanswered questions. We should be making sure those kids get to their parents, making sure that every single one of those children is accounted for. That is doing our job.

Instead, we are passing another appropriations bill with the full knowledge that we will probably do what we have done every year that I have been here: We will pass a CR at the end of

the fiscal year, and then we will probably pass another CR, and then another, and then another, and then another, because we can't legislate together.

This rule makes in order 29 amendments, but not a single one of them deals with the issues of the kids. Why not allow a vote on the amendment I offered with Representative Schiff to prohibit detaining children at military facilities?

Why not allow a vote on my amendment to block certain Cabinet members from using military aircraft until the children are reunited? Is it more important for Scott Pruitt to get on a plane than for a baby from El Salvador to get back into his mother's arms? or the amendment offered by my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis? Representative Polis' amendment would have prohibited the Department of Defense from transferring resources to the Department of Justice to carry out prosecution of migrant families.

Don't our troops need these resources? Shouldn't our military be focused on keeping us safe from ISIS and North Korea, not toddlers and babies?

And why is the Republican leadership afraid to allow us to have a vote? I guess babies are too controversial for the Republican caucus. I guess keeping families together is a poison pill amendment.

By refusing Congress a vote, this House is giving up its responsibility to make immigration laws, plain and simple. This House should be a check on the administration. That is the way the system is supposed to work. But we are not doing that. Instead, by refusing to let us have a vote on the floor, the Republican House majority is endorsing President Trump's family jails.

Mr. Speaker, this House majority owns this crisis. Let me be clear: A vote for this rule is a vote for more of President Trump's cruelty to these babies. It is a vote to keep innocent children from their parents.

This House has the power to reunite these families. This House has the power to end separation. This House has the power to stop hateful immigration policies.

But this House won't act. Because of that, thousands of families may be destroyed forever. We must defeat this rule and give this House an opportunity to act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that a primary duty of this Congress is to fund the military, absolutely. There are military families serving in our Nation and abroad that deserve to get paid.

So I would like to take this moment of privilege to remind this Congress that, before I got here, my son, who joined the United States Air Force, was going to have his pay withheld. I remember him telling me, Mr. Speaker:

Mom, I signed up to serve our great Nation in the United

States Air Force, and I signed up to defend and protect my

country. I did not sign up to defend and protect the men of

my country, but I signed up to protect all of the people in

my country. And I resent Congress withholding my pay or tying

my pay to the reproductive rights of women.

So let's keep all of those things in mind when we talk about the priorities of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that I absolutely agree with my colleague from the other side of the aisle on one thing, and that is that we should be absolutely focused and work together on the issues on which we agree, such as the USA Act.

Mr. Speaker, why aren't we allowed to have a vote on the floor when that is bipartisan legislation created by a bipartisan group of Members?

If we want to talk about the rule of law, Mr. Speaker, we can't talk from both ends. Either we support the rule of law or we don't. Yet this Republican Congress, time and time and time again, has been complicit with President Trump and his family's conflicts of interest when it comes to dealing

with China, when it comes to dealing with our trade agreements, when it comes to dealing with Russia and now possibly North Korea.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has ripped thousands of children from their parents' arms at the border, sending them all over the country. Separating children from their parent poses ongoing psychological harm and trauma, yet the government has no clear plans to reunite those families. For that reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Bass' bill, H.R. 6236, the Family Unity Rights and Protection Act, which would require the Federal Government to reunite families which have been forcibly separated at the border.

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, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass) to discuss this proposal.

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

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

Let me remind this body of a brief history of our Nation.

During World War II, this country chose to round up Japanese American citizens and put them in internment camps across the country.

Some were held in my hometown at the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds, in Pomona, California.

In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. United States that the government had every right to incarcerate families in the best interest of our national security. It was wrong and immoral then, and it is wrong and immoral now, and we look back at Japanese internment as a dark moment in our history.

Just yesterday, the Supreme Court finally rejected the ruling and admitted that it was clearly unconstitutional to forcibly place Japanese Americans in concentration camps--74 years later. That is how long it took for our court system to catch up with the reality and to right a horrible wrong.

We are facing a similar dark period in our country now with what is happening at our southern borders. How long will it take this time for us to realize that what this administration is doing at our southern borders is morally repugnant, wrong, and illegal?

How long before we realize that what we are doing is causing emotional harm to families, especially to the children? How long before we consider how history will remember this moment and judge us?

What national security threat are we facing today that warrants such a barbaric response towards families and children? They are exactly that: children, families, babies.

They are coming to our borders pleading for help and protection. They are fleeing kidnapping, rape, murder, and threats. They are not MS-13; they are fleeing MS-13. They want to work and raise their children in peace. Is that so terrible?

This administration is deliberately choosing to inflict trauma onto thousands of children, holding children hostage, using child abuse as a scare tactic to deter families from coming here seeking refuge.

There are still more than 2,000 children separated from their families at this present moment. President Trump may have signed his executive order last week, but he failed to implement a plan to reunite these families--no plan to reunite these families.

We are doing nothing to fix this problem today. And let's be clear: Speaker Ryan's bill, which we may or may not consider this week, does nothing to fix this problem either. All his bill does is pave the way for long-term incarceration of families in prison-like facilities. It would be replacing one form of child abuse for another.

I visited some of these detention centers at our borders. The horrendous conditions we are exposing families to are completely unacceptable.

Where are we, as a nation, when we place children in cage-like cells, inside warehouses, with nothing but an emergency thermal blanket and a thin mat between them and the cold concrete floor, with a toilet in the middle of the cell? Criminally prosecuting every individual, every child, who crosses between a port of entry, who poses no threat to our country, is not only inhumane, it makes us less secure.

We have a limited number of prosecutors. We have to make choices. If you prosecute one crime, it means you are not prosecuting another. So when we send our prosecutors after every single border crosser, who benefits? Let me tell you who benefits. The murderers, the rapists, the drug traffickers, the drug dealers, the pimps, the muggers, and the human traffickers, that is who will benefit from this. We are taking away from where law enforcement agencies need the most and are wasting by traumatizing defenseless families. How does this make us safe?

This administration's impulsive zero-tolerance policy is harming our moral credibility. It is harming our national security. Most of all, it is harming innocent babies.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment to restore $24 million for Navy AIM-120 Delta AMRAAM procurement to match House-passed NDAA levels.

When he rolled out the National Defense Strategy, Secretary Mattis was clear: ``Great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.''

Nowhere is this competition more intense than in the Indo-Pacific, where the ``fight tonight'' mission has never been more urgent, given threats from both great powers and rogue regimes.

Pentagon leaders have been clear: addressing critical munitions shortfalls such as the AMRAAM is a top priority.

During his confirmation, the new Indo-PACOM commander, Phil Davidson, listed critical munitions stockpiles as one of his top two capability and capacity challenges to addressing threats in the Indo-Pacific. Admiral Davidson went on to list advancements in air-to-air munitions-- and the AIM-120D in particular--as his top solution to challenges presented by anti-access area-denial capabilities.

Unfortunately, our AMRAAM inventory is currently at only 50 percent of the requirement--50 percent. We cannot afford to cut any further.

It is no surprise, then, that the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill singles out munitions reductions as an area of special concern. To quote the Statement of Administration Policy: ``DOD still has shortfalls in preferred munitions needed to achieve successfully the operational plans identified in the National Defense Strategy.'' And the very first munition mentioned is the AIM-120D AMRAAM.

Let's be clear about the implications here. The NDS is about great power competition. Our ability to win--or, much preferably, deter a great power war--comes down to our ability to execute these plans and impose our will on our adversaries.

These same adversaries are watching American defense spending debates right now, looking for signs such as failing to address publicly reported shortfalls, that America is not serious about long-term competition. Decisions like this, here and now, may seem small, but they all add up to tell a story that our friends and our foes, alike, receive loud and clear.

Last year, on a bipartisan basis, we were able to help address key Mark 48 torpedo shortfalls in this appropriations bill in order to address a critical war-fighting need. I hope we can build on this success this time around.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to match the House-passed authorization level as well as the administration request, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I would say I am all for finding efficiencies wherever we can get them, particularly in a very tight budgetary environment. That is why, in structuring this amendment, we need a concerted effort to prioritize the urgent operational requirements faced day in and day out in the Pacific where, notwithstanding any past delays, the balance of power, I would argue, is rapidly shifting against us and where any further shifts could really harm our ability to project power in the future.

We have also provided the Defense Contract Management Agency the flexibility to make modest steps toward finding efficiencies in its budget. Even after accounting for this offset, DCMA O&M would be funded at nearly $25 million over the House-passed NDAA level.

I would also say, our offset supports House-passed NDAA reductions to bureaucratic overhead in the so-called DOD fourth estate. In line with finding efficiencies, the fourth estate is comprised of the organizations within DOD that do not report to a military service and have proven difficult to manage or oversee, and I think the savings identified will go directly toward critical munitions for the warfighter--in other words, maximizing tooth while minimizing tail-- getting as much of the resource as possible out of the bureaucracy in the Pentagon and at the front lines where our warfighters need it most.

I have enormous respect for the chairwoman's position, I appreciate her willingness to consider this, and I appreciate the robust debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, as with the preceding amendment, this proposal addresses critical munitions shortfalls, this time by providing $33 million for Air Force AIM-120D AMRAAM procurement to match the NDAA.

The same argument for Navy AMRAAM procurement apply equally to this amendment as well. In order to support Indo-PACOM's fight tonight mission, we must increase our stockpiles of critical munitions. With our AMRAAM inventory currently at 50 percent of the requirement, we cannot afford to see further cuts.

This amendment would simply restore the House-passed NDAA level for Air Force AMRAAM procurement, and addresses one of the specific concerns outlined in the SAP on this bill.

I understand the argument on finding efficiencies. I just think it is worth remembering, particularly when we look at that region of the world, that aggression in the Pacific has historically caught our country off guard. After all, not only did the attack on Pearl Harbor and the North Korean advance past the 38th parallel come as a surprise, but we were similarly stunned by the rapid Chinese entry into the Korean war.

These mistakes cost American lives and forced our men and women in uniform to play catch-up. And I know that such a level of conflict may seem unthinkable in the post-Cold War world, but history has a way of, if not repeating itself, rhyming from time to time.

While this small investment will not inoculate us entirely against being caught flat-footed once again, it is a small step towards addressing critical munition shortfalls and giving our combatant and commanders the tools they need to deter conflict in the first place; and, if the worst does happen, be ready with the munitions they need.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. Chairman, I know, to some extent, we always seem to be making choices between near-term readiness requirements and long-term modernization efforts. I would submit, however, that that is a false choice, or perhaps is a choice that has been foisted upon us by bad budgetary decisions that we have made in the past 6 years.

The reality is, if you take a look at the world, we are going to have to do both things at the same time: invest in both readiness and modernization.

So I have enormous respect for those efforts to find efficiencies and make sure we can put dollars where people need them most. I simply, on balance, would like to put money in the hands of warfighters who are dealing with threats on the front lines as much as humanly possible.

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