Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, have no speakers on this amendment. I urge adoption of the en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to start off by agreeing with the chairman on the importance both of the bill, but also on the incredible work that we do in a bipartisan manner.

I think the chairman has set the right tone for the committee. His leadership makes all the difference in the world in terms of making sure that we all understand that we are working together to produce a product that is enormously important to the national security of this country.

Not that we don't have our disagreements--we have many--but we do so in a respectful way, always with the goal of what is the best policy for our national defense. The chairman's leadership has set the tone for that in a way that is helpful to all of us.

All 62 members of the committee also contribute, and, of course, the staff. The staff has to look through all the amendments, all the issues, and make sure that we are aware of them, and they do a fabulous job. This is the one bill that we pass every year, and the work that our staff does is always outstanding and always puts us Members in a position to do the best we can on the bill.

So I appreciate the staff, I appreciate the bipartisan spirit in the committee, and I look forward to having a 58th successful year in producing a National Defense Authorization Act because, first and foremost, it is incredibly important that we set national security policy for this country.

As the chairman mentioned, we face an incredibly complex set of threat environments. We need policy to figure out what the best approach to that is. Most importantly, right now, after nearly 17 years of war, we have really worked the men and women who serve us in the armed services very, very hard, and there is a very real readiness problem within our military, as we have underfunded that to fund the short-term needs as presented by the conflicts that we have gotten into.

I think the most important thing about this bill is it really begins to pay that back. It begins to bring back up the readiness levels so that the men and women who serve us are prepared for the fights that we ask them to do. That, to me, is the most important point.

We can have a very robust debate about how large the military budget should be, about what responsibilities we should take on, but wherever we come out on that debate, when we decide this is what we expect the military to do, it is incredibly important that we provide the funds and training to make sure that they can do it.

Now, again, we can argue that they should do less, but in my mind, it is completely unacceptable to say: Well, we have got so many priorities, We don't know how to do it. We are going to ask you to do all these things and then not have the men and women to get the training that they need to be ready for that fight.

I believe this bill starts moving us in the right direction. It also honors the agreement that we made just a few short months ago for both FY '18 and, now, FY '19 in terms of what the defense and nondefense numbers should be in the appropriations process. So I appreciate that.

There are several things; and as the chairman mentioned, in a bill of this size, of this magnitude, $717 billion, it would be a miracle if there were any one person who agreed with absolutely everything in the bill. I am sure there is not. But the one thing that I would point out that is most troubling to me is the endorsement of the nuclear posture review that was just put forward by the administration.

I am very concerned, number one, that we are spending too much money on our nuclear weapons arsenal going forward and what impact will that have on those other needs that I mentioned just a minute ago. What impact will that have on readiness? What impact will it have on our ability to have the forces forward deployed enough to deter Russia, to deter North Korea, to deal with China's rise in Asia? So I think we are overemphasizing nuclear weapons, number one, in terms of the amount of money that we are spending on them.

But equally as troubling, this bill authorizes low-yield nuclear weapons for

the first time in a very long time. It even authorizes a low-yield nuclear weapon for our submarines. I believe that that puts us down a dangerous course. We need to do more to make sure that we are deterring any possibility of nuclear war.

There is a huge risk as Russia rises back up, with what North Korea is doing, now that we are not in the nuclear agreement with Iran, what they might be doing, that we avoid miscalculation and stumble into a nuclear war. Thinking that there is such a thing as a tactical nuclear weapon, a weapon small enough that it doesn't really rise to the level of the other nuclear weapons, I think, is a mistake.

And, yes, I know Russia is building them. So the question is: How do we deter Russia? Well, I think we deter Russia in a very straightforward way. We have over 4,000 nuclear warheads. We have more than enough nuclear firepower to present a credible deterrent to what they are doing.

We don't have to say: Well, if you use a small nuclear weapon, we won't want to use a bigger one in response. We want to say that our deterrence is: If you cross the red line of all red lines and use a nuclear weapon, we will respond overwhelmingly. We want to make sure it never happens.

So I think building low-yield tactical nuclear weapons is a mistake. I also think it is incredibly important that we increase the dialogue between our country and Russia and China and North Korea, nuclear armed powers, to make sure that there is not a miscalculation and we don't stumble into a nuclear war.

Overall, I think this is a good product. I look forward to the amendment debate and look forward to supporting the bill.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), our ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown), a member of the Armed Services Committee and a veteran of our military. I appreciate his service on the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left on each side.

Mr. Chair, I don't have any further speakers at this time. If the gentleman from Texas is prepared to close, then I am prepared to close as well.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Again, I just want to emphasize the most important aspect of this bill is the bipartisan effort that we have done working together. There are literally thousands of provisions in this bill. All of them are important in their own way to helping make sure that we set the right policy and make sure that the Department of Defense can be as strong as is humanly possible.

One thing I didn't say in the opening remarks, that I do want to point out, I particularly want to thank Chairman Thornberry on his leadership on acquisition reform and reform in general--the idea of how can we make sure that every dollar we spend at the Pentagon is spent as wisely as possible. As we know that has not always been the case. I think we made a number of reforms, more in the previous two years' bill than in this one, but this one continues on that. I think it put us on a path to having a more efficient and effective use use of dollars on the Pentagon side.

We all look forward to that day, which is supposed to happen I believe this year, when we actually get the full audit from the Pentagon on where they spend their money. In these times of scarce resources, it is incredibly important we get the most out of what we spend.

And the last little piece on that point, I do worry about the future from a fiscal standpoint. We are right now spending roughly 20 percent more money than we take in every year, and that is projected to go up. The debt to GDP ratio is over 100 percent and, again, is projected to only go up.

We have got the deal for FY18 and FY19 which gives some degree of predictability for our military--and that is good--because the last, gosh, 8 years now, we have gone from CR to CR, couple of government shutdowns, a number of threatened government shutdowns, and a large amount of unpredictability which is a problem for the entire discretionary budget--not just for the Department of Defense but every other Department that is dependent upon the discretionary budget has lived with uncertainty. That makes our government less efficient and less effective. We need to lock in more predictability.

Now, traditionally at this point, this is when everyone says that the Budget Control Act and the budget caps have got to go, and I agree with that. The problem is you can get rid of the budget caps and you can get rid of the Budget Control Act--and we certainly should. That was passed back in 2011. It wasn't even passed for a good reason back then.

But even if you get rid of those caps, it doesn't make money magically appear. We still have the debt and the deficit that we are facing. We still have the crushing needs that we have, not just in the Department of Defense, but in infrastructure and research and education and a whole bunch of critical areas to the health and wellbeing of our country.

Someone thought I was joking when someone talked about his ``fiscal hawk credentials.'' I am wondering if anyone has fiscal hawk credentials at this point when you look at the debt and deficit. We have got to get that in order. Now I don't think we are going to balance the budget tomorrow. I don't think we should. I think the impact on the economy will be devastating, but we have got to get on a glide path to a more fiscally sustainable situation or we are headed for trouble.

I simply don't believe that you can spend 20 percent more money than you take in forever and not have it be a problem. And everything you want to know about how big a problem this is is contained in three votes that we took over a couple month period.

There are many, many Members of Congress who voted for the tax cut, which estimates say it is going to reduce our revenue by $2 trillion; for the spending agreement, which increased our spending by $500 billion; and then, a week later, they voted for a balanced budget amendment.

To say that that is a math problem is the understatement of the year. It doesn't add up. We all say we want to balance the budget. We don't want to raise taxes. We don't want to cut spending. That doesn't work and a lot of different aspects of our government pay a price for that.

But the Department of Defense is one of the biggest. As the largest portion of the discretionary budget, they pay the highest price when we don't get ourselves on a fiscally responsible path, and national security is at least one of, if not the most important function that our government needs to provide.

So I think FY18 and FY19, those are good deals. The building code for the future, we have got to get on a fiscally responsible path.

But, again, within this bill--and you have heard a lot of it from our Members--there are a lot of good policies that I think are going to make a very positive difference in terms of making our Department of Defense work better and, most importantly, providing for the men and women who serve our country and their families.

I thank the chairman. I thank the staff. I think, once again, we have done outstanding work. I hope that we can get through the amendment process, get this bill passed, and then go chat with the Senate about getting the bill finished. They are marking their bill up in committee this week, so I think we are on a good path to do that as well.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment. I just want to comment on a couple of aspects of it.

I think it is incredibly important that we get more small businesses involved. Sometimes the best technology, the best ideas, that is where they start, and working with the Pentagon bureaucracy can be overwhelming.

A large company like Lockheed Martin or Boeing doesn't have a problem, but maybe the best ideas come from some small garage startup. I think making affirmative efforts to make sure we reach out and get those companies involved is something that is very important and something we need to continue to do. Yes, we need to track the success of it.

Given the record of some of the programs of record, I personally would hesitate to judge them based on whether or not they made it into a program of record. I know we have done some reforms where it has worked where they don't have to get into a program of record. The Pentagon doesn't have to go through all of the processes that are involved with that. They just are able to say: I like that. We are going to buy it.

In fact, that is one of the reforms that the chairman has been a leader on doing is freeing up more opportunity, particularly when you are talking about technology, to simply buy the best product instead of having to do an RFP and a down select and going through a lengthy process. So I agree with the chairman on that.

As we are judging whether or not these small businesses are truly contributing to our national security, I would hope we would keep two things in mind. One is having a program of record may not necessarily be a measure of whether or not they are doing that; and two, not all ideas work out, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep pursuing them. It is the Silicon Valley mantra that it is okay to fail. You learn something from that. You build a better technology. And with the rapid pace of technology, that is part of what we need to do as well.

I think these programs are critically important. The gentleman's amendment will help with that. I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, first, let me say I agree with Mr. Nolan on a couple of key points.

Number one, I think the overseas contingency fund has come to be relied on too much. Yes, it was created before the Budget Control Act, but these wars have been going on long enough now that we ought to be able to incorporate it into the funds. So I agree with him on that. But completely zeroing out the overseas contingency fund, I think, is irresponsible, because while I agree in some cases the terrorism threat may be overblown, it is, nonetheless, real.

Yemen is always the best example. We went into Afghanistan after 9/ 11. We dealt with that. We thought we had al-Qaida contained. And then we had the underwear bomber in Detroit and the package bombs that both almost came into the U.S. and attacked us, and they came out of Yemen. So we had to respond to that. We had to respond in our own self- defense. And that is part of what the overseas contingency fund funds.

So, if we wanted to reduce it, if we wanted to get more transparency, I am all for that. But to simply zero it out would basically be to say that we have all these wars and we really have none of them.

I am somewhere in between on that. So I can't support zeroing out the overseas contingency fund, although I do agree with some of the statements that the sponsor of the amendment made.

Mr. Chairman, because it zeros it out completely, I have to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I agree very strongly with my colleague from the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Rogers, that we need a strong nuclear deterrent. Russia is primarily the focus of that, but not exclusively the focus of that. China has nuclear weapons, North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran aspires to have them. Without question, we need a strong deterrent.

My argument is that we have one. We have over 4,000 nuclear weapons. We do have some low-yield nuclear weapons. We don't have them in the standoff capacity. But more than that, what we need to communicate to Russia is not that nuclear war is something of degree; that, basically, well, if you were to use a low-yield nuclear weapon, we wouldn't know what to do because we don't have one that is equally as small. I think that is the exact wrong approach.

Our approach should be that nuclear weapons are the red line to end all red lines. There is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Even these tactical nuclear weapons that the gentleman talks about Russia having, I think are some 100 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

What we need to communicate to Russia is: If you use a nuclear weapon, we will respond with nuclear weapons. So don't.

We don't need to build small nuclear weapons so that military people can start to imagine a survivable nuclear war. This is the way people used to think in the sixties and seventies when we came tiptoeing up very close on more than one occasion to stumbling in to the conflict to end all conflicts, a nuclear war.

If we start buying in to Russia's philosophy that a low-yield nuclear weapon is, like, a manageable thing that you can use in a combat situation that doesn't necessarily lead to a broader nuclear weapon, we are running the risk of creating the very thing we are trying to prevent.

We need a deterrent. We have a deterrent. We should not mince words with the Russians or anybody else. Nuclear weapons are red line. We will respond. And we will not trouble ourselves to make sure that our nuclear weapon isn't bigger than yours. We will deter them in that way, rather than running the risk.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

We have no further speakers on en bloc No. 1.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no speakers. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, have no requests for time, urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel.

Today, Israel is home to over 8 million people--all with unique histories that stretch from around the world. The nation has become fertile ground for business, innovation, and entrepreneurship, with companies leading the way in cutting edge technologies. Israel has also worked to strengthen their global outreach and assistance through the work of organizations such as MASHAV--sharing expert insight and technical assistance with countries in the developing world, and helping to lift people out of poverty.

Founded as a Jewish state in 1948 following the aftermath of the horrific genocide that was the Holocaust, Israel's existence is a tribute to perseverance. From the beginning, many of Israel's neighbors rejected their right to exist--some even taking up arms and attacking the young nation. I have been, and will continue to be, an ardent supporter of Israel, and have advocated for robust U.S. engagement to help ensure their safety and encourage peace in the region.

I am proud to rise in support of Israel on this exciting anniversary, and to celebrate the deep ties that have been forged between it and the United States--including in the Ninth District of Washington state. I look forward to the future.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 16 and Tuesday, April 17, 2018, I was not present for recorded votes. I would have voted:

YES on roll call vote No. 140 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 146, as amended),

YES on roll call vote No. 141 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 167), and

YES on roll call vote No. 142 (on passage of H.R. 5192).

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 26 and Tuesday, February 27, 2018, I was not present for recorded votes. I would have voted:

``YES'' on roll call vote No. 81 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1222, as amended),

``YES'' on roll call vote No. 82 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2422, as amended),

``NO'' on roll call vote No. 83 (on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair),

``NO'' on roll call vote No. 84 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 748),

``NO'' on roll call vote No. 85 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 748),

``NO'' on roll call vote No. 86 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 747),

``NO'' on roll call vote No. 87 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 747),

``YES'' on roll call vote No. 88 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 4296, with instructions),

``NO'' on roll call vote No. 89 (on passage of H.R. 4296),

``NO'' on roll call vote No. 90 (on agreeing to the Walters Amendment to H.R. 1865), and

``NO'' on roll call vote No. 91 (on passage of H.R. 1865).

Mr. Speaker, I have an enormous amount of respect for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but I would remind everybody that, back in September, he and a majority of the Armed Services Committee Republicans voted against the CR, in September, 4 months ago. Why? Because at the time, he said: A CR is devastating for our military. It is the worst possible thing to do to our military.

Four months ago, he said that, and now he says that we should vote for a CR.

Think about it. Unless that vote, back in September, was simply hollow and hypocritical, he was prepared to shut down the government in September rather than continue to fund our military, and, by the way, the rest of the government, with a CR.

He was right in September, but it took Democrats to actually have the courage of that conviction to say: No, we are not going to continue to gut the military drip by drip by drip, CR by CR. We are going to stand up and say, no. Pass appropriations bills.

That is why we are doing this.

I would also point out that five Republican Senators voted against the House bill. It is not a filibuster. They don't have 50 votes in the Senate for what you guys want to do.

Mac Thornberry was right, back in September. A CR is terrible for the military. Don't support a CR. Fund the military.

Mr. Speaker, each year for the past 57 years the Congress has passed annual legislation to authorize the policies, programs, and activities of the Department of Defense. Today, we refer to this important legislation as the National Defense Authorization Act. Crafting this bill is no easy task, and it couldn't be done without the countless hours of work put in by the House Armed Services Committee staff and the attorneys at the House Office of Legislative Counsel. Today, I rise to honor a member of the legislative counsel team to thank him for his 31 years of service to the House of Representatives, and especially to the House Armed Services Committee.

A graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School, Greg Kostka joined the House Office of Legislative Counsel in 1986 and has had a hand in the drafting of each National Defense Authorization Act since the Fiscal Year 1989 bill. While Greg's focus areas have been in military personnel, military justice, military construction, and readiness, he is known by his colleagues as someone capable of drafting in virtually any area of defense law if called upon. And from 2016 to 2017, Greg served as the defense team lead in the Office of Legislative Counsel.

Greg's expertise and interest in the military extended beyond his time drafting legislation in his office. As an amateur historian of the Civil War, Greg wrote an unofficial history of the role of the Third U.S. Regular Infantry during the American Civil War. I understand that he also participated in Civil War reenactments.

Greg was a regular participant in annual legislative update programs for the military's Judge Advocate Generals and accompanied committee staff on visits to several military installations. Greg brought his expertise and interest with him every day, and his work showed that he cared deeply about the men and women who serve in uniform.

Greg's professionalism and institutional knowledge have been greatly appreciated by his colleagues in the Office of Legislative Counsel as well as by Members and staff who have had the pleasure of working with him over the years. After 31 years of dedicated service to the House of Representatives, Greg announced his retirement from the Office of Legislative Counsel on December 31, 2017.

On behalf of all the Members and staff of the House Armed Services Committee, I offer my sincere gratitude to Greg for his expertise and wise counsel over the years and wish him, and his wife Jeanine, all the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Suzette Cooke, the Mayor of the City of Kent, on her retirement. The citizens of Kent will miss her commitment, unstoppable work ethic, and passion.

For many decades prior to serving as Mayor, Suzette Cooke was a devoted public servant. She was the Executive Director of the Renton and Kent Chambers of Commerce, the Economic Development Manager for the City of Burien, the Recreation Supervisor for Seattle Parks, and Director of the Kent Senior Center. She also served three terms in the Washington State House of Representatives, where she chaired the Committee on Children and Family Services.

Under her leadership as Mayor, Kent has grown from a small, farming town, to a sizable city boasting a population of 125,000. Mayor Cooke has created a welcoming environment for people from a range of different backgrounds in a city that has become one of the most diverse in the country.

In addition to Suzette Cooke's duties as Mayor, she has remained an active volunteer and has served with organizations that help better the community she loves. Impressively, she has chaired the Kent Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund Board, the King County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee, and the South County Area Transportation Board. She has also been a member of the King County's Regional Transit Task Force and the King County Board of Health.

On top of her professional and civic engagements, Mayor Cooke has also found the time to remain an avid recreationist and has summited eight of Washington State's tallest mountains. It seems clear that, for her, no challenge is insurmountable.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize Mayor Suzette Cooke on her retirement. It has been a privilege to work with dedicated leaders like Mayor Cooke. I thank her for her service to her community and wish her all the best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Dr. Jack Bermingham, the President of Highline College, on his retirement.

Dr. Bermingham's academic career began in 1979, upon earning his Ph.D. in History from the University of California, Santa Barbara. After serving on the faculty of the University of the West Indies in Jamaica, he moved to Washington state where he later became the Dean of Social Sciences at Pacific Lutheran University. His career at Highline College began in 1994 when he joined the College's administration as Academic Vice President. His career at Highline progressed and he was appointed to serve as the college's President in 2006.

During his tenure at Highline College, Dr. Bermingham fought to further education on many fronts. He expanded the College's collaborations with businesses, K-12 schools, four-year institutions, and local organizations in order to improve the community's access to education. Under his leadership, the college began offering four-year degree programs, among them the Bachelor of Applied Science in Cyber Security, which received regional, national, and international recognition. Dr. Bermingham also served on numerous boards and committees at the national and regional level.

Dr. Bermingham has also been a leader in international education. He has presented at international conferences, including in Turkey, Hong Kong, and Botswana. He served as Chair of the Executive Committee of the Board of Community Colleges for International Development, which also recognized his outstanding work in international education in 2005. That same year, he was also recognized by the Polytechnic of Namibia for his instrumental role in the success of that institution's international partnerships. Additionally, for the past seven years under Dr. Bermingham's presidency, Highline College has hosted the Pacific Rim Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition which attracts teams from international universities and institutions.

Throughout his career, Dr. Bermingham has been an ardent champion of diversity and social justice. Highline College has become the most diverse higher education institution in Washington state. It is also a place where many immigrants and refugees begin their journey to achieve their academic and professional dreams. Highline College was awarded the Equity Award from the Association of Community College Trustees in 2016, and for the last four years has been awarded the High Education Excellence in Diversity Award. Dr. Bermingham made it a priority for Highline College and their faculty to serve all students, regardless of color, creed, ethnicity, or economic situation.

Dr. Bermingham's legacy is one of harmony, inclusion, and academic excellence. He has proven himself to be a tenacious leader, and has also shown to have the ability to connect with people through kindness and compassion. He will be greatly missed at the college by faculty, students, and the community.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Dr. Jack Bermingham on his twenty-three years of service at Highline College and wish him the very best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Jorge L. Baron for his exemplary work on behalf of immigrant communities and to congratulate him on receiving El Centro de la Raza's 7th Annual Roberto Felipe Maestas Legacy Award.

Jorge has served as the Executive Director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) since 2008. NWIRP provides free or low-cost legal representation to over 10,000 immigrant and refugee families in the Pacific Northwest. With Jorge at the helm, the organization has steadily increased its size and budget and is now the largest of its kind in the region. Serving thousands of immigrants each year, Jorge and his colleagues at NWIRP believe that having access to an attorney is a fundamental human right. They strive to represent as many immigrant families as possible.

Jorge immigrated from Bogota, Columbia when he was just thirteen years old. After graduating from Duke University, he worked in the film industry for several years until finding his passion for human rights law. He then attended Yale Law School. From his unique perspective on the immigration system, he not only understands the law, but also understands the hopes, fears, and needs that a new generation of immigrants face today.

Jorge's many accomplishments include helping to secure the return of two individuals who were turned away from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport due to President Trump's travel ban, and defending the rights of detained immigrants at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma.

The Roberto Felipe Maestas Legacy Award honors the legacy of Roberto Maestas by recognizing those who are dedicated to ``building the beloved community'' and eliminating poverty, racism, and social inequity. Jorge's work exemplifies these standards.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize Jorge Baron for his vital advocacy efforts on behalf of the immigrant community. I have no doubt Jorge will continue to advance human rights in the Pacific Northwest for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I just really want to support Mr. Langevin for his leadership on this issue, something that we brought up in committee, and a program that really should be just discontinued, and I think the motion to instruct is perfectly appropriate.

It was a program that was originally created, and the reason that we were selling back firearms to the public from the U.S. military, the program was literally created because we were worried that there wouldn't be enough people in our country that knew how to fire a weapon if we should need to draft them into a war. That is why the program was created.

Obviously, for a whole bunch of reasons, that is no longer applicable. We have an all volunteer military. They are trained to shoot. They know how to shoot. We don't need to train random folks with weapons from the military.

Also, originally, the program was simply aimed at rifles; and now they have thrown in, I think it is, around 100,000 pistols that they want to sell back to the public, in general. And this company makes money, the taxpayers don't, and we put 100,000 more weapons out on the streets.

I think if there is one thing we should be able to agree on is that there is more than enough firepower out there amongst the public. We should not be taking military weapons and selling them back out into the public, and this motion, this amendment that Mr. Langevin first brought up has a very simple solution. We will hold onto those weapons; we will melt them down. I think that is the appropriate response. We do not need to sell more firearms out there into the public.

I think the gentleman from Rhode Island has done an outstanding job showing leadership on this issue. I urge us to adopt this motion to instruct, and I urge the conference committee to adopt this as part of the final National Defense Authorization Act that we ultimately will pass.