Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Alabama State Representative James Buskey.

Representative Buskey recently announced that he will be retiring from the Alabama House of Representatives after 42 years of representing people in Mobile, Alabama.

He was first elected to the House in 1976, making him one of the longest-serving legislators in Alabama history. Outside of the legislature, Representative Buskey spent much of his life working in public education, including as a school administrator at E.S. Chastang Middle School in Mobile.

While we have had our share of political differences, I have always appreciated his institutional knowledge and respected his passion for our local community. I am honored to call James a friend and appreciate his decades of service to the people of Mobile and Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I wish James and his wife, Vergie, all the best upon his retirement and the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill. The Make America Secure Appropriations Act is all about protecting the American people and securing our homeland.

Unfortunately, years of underfunding have severely hurt our military. With this bill, we can make real progress towards rebuilding the military and adding more troops, sailors, airmen, and marines to the force.

Building on our pledge to boost the Navy to a 355-ship fleet, the bill funds 11 new ships. Included in this are three littoral combat ships, of which the Independence class vessel is built by a fantastic workforce in southwest Alabama.

Having state-of-the-art facilities and resources is vital to the success of our military. To help repair dilapidated and aging military infrastructure, the bill provides a 25 percent increase in military construction funding.

Supporting our servicemembers and their families is also a high priority of this bill, as it provides for the largest military pay raise in 8 years.

That is not all it does. It also provides for our Nation's veterans, the very people who devoted their lives to protecting our country and the values we hold so dear. This bill provides the highest level of funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs in our Nation's history. This will help cut down on the claims backlog and move forward with a new electronic medical health records system.

I am also pleased that this bill will allow us to begin increasing our Nation's border security in an effort to keep bad actors out of our country. The American people sent a strong message last November that they wanted a wall securing our southern border. This bill will begin this process by providing over $1.5 billion requested by President Trump for physical barrier construction along the southern border.

Mr. Speaker, over this last weekend a lot of people in America went to see a movie called ``Dunkirk'' about the evacuation of over 300,000 British and French troops back over to England. Prime Minister Winston Churchill had only been in office a couple of weeks at that point in time, but he had predicted for years before that in speeches before the House of Commons that that day was coming, and they took his speeches and they put them together in a book called, ``While England Slept.'' With this bill, we are sending a strong message to the world that America is not asleep.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Florida, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this straightforward and bipartisan amendment would provide important clarity for the recreational marine industry as it relates to workers' compensation coverage.

For decades, Federal law stated that individuals who build, dismantle, or repair recreational vessels less than 65 feet could be covered under State workers' compensation law instead of the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

Under the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2009, the law was simplified by eliminating the size limitation, which allowed more employers to purchase State workers' compensation.

Unfortunately, in 2011, the Department of Labor issued a burdensome and confusing rule creating a new definition of recreational vessel. This change contradicted legislation passed by the Congress in 2009, and effectively denied recreational vessel repair workers access to more affordable State workers' compensation insurance.

This regulatory confusion and uncertainty is reducing access to affordable workers' compensation policies and also hurting the overall recreational repair industry.

Our bipartisan amendment increases strong protections to ensure that no vessel used for commercial or military purposes is inappropriately excepted from the Federal requirements.

This amendment would provide regulatory relief for small businesses, including those in coastal Alabama, while also ensuring the maritime workers receive the protections they need.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman. He and I have worked together on shipbuilding issues a lot of times, and I appreciate his leadership in that industry.

These are recreational vessel companies. They are small companies doing small things on different types of vessels than the ones that Mr. Courtney and I are typically working together on. So trying to apply the same rules when it is a completely different activity to where, when we are usually talking about very large ships, it just doesn't make any sense.

This has traditionally been a Democrat amendment. I have always supported it. I am happy to be here to support it today. I would like for us to continue our tradition of bipartisanship on this issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have heard nothing from the Coast Guard this year in opposition to this amendment. In years past, I think the gentleman is correct, we have heard from them, but this year we have heard no opposition. In fact, a recreational vessel being repaired is the same as a recreational vessel being manufactured to use as a public vessel and should be treated the same in law.

The Coast Guard already strictly enforces the existing laws and regulations that determine whether a vessel is recreational and enforces the law against those who would unlawfully use recreational vessels for commercial purposes. So I would suggest to the gentleman that this is not something the Coast Guard opposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 440 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 440 provides for a complete consideration of H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. The rule allows for consideration of 122 amendments in addition to the amendments made in order by yesterday's rule.

This brings the total number of amendments made in order for full consideration to 210. When you add in the 275 amendments offered during the Armed Services Committee markup, we will, in total, have considered 485 amendments to this year's NDAA.

Just as important, there is a clear bipartisan split between the number of majority and the number of minority amendments made in order.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an incredibly open process that allowed Members of this body from both sides to have their input on this critical national security legislation.

Like other years, the NDAA is a great example of the House working through regular order in the authorizing process and getting the job done.

Thanks to this rule and the one we passed yesterday, the House will debate a number of issues where Members of this body have diverse views. From the future of GTMO to the future of the New START, the two NDAA rules provide for a robust debate on many important topics. That is a good thing, and I look forward to the debate.

Before I continue, I want to briefly thank the staff in both the Armed Services Committee and the Rules Committee for their hard work on this rule. Dealing with this large number of amendments takes a considerable amount of time, and I know I speak for the entire body, both the majority and minority, in expressing our gratitude for their time and work in helping the members of the Rules Committee come to this product.

Yesterday, I outlined my strong support for this year's NDAA, which will help keep the American people safe and secure, so I won't rehash all those points. But I want to share some numbers that highlight the readiness crisis facing our military. This crisis has been caused by cuts to defense spending. This bill authorizes funding for the military at $688.3 billion, which is 16.8 percent of total Federal outlays and 3.4 percent of projected gross domestic product.

As a guiding point, 30 years ago, the fiscal year 1988 NDAA represented 27.3 percent of total Federal outlays. This year, 16 percent; back then, 27 percent. And 5.2 percent of projected GDP. This year, 3.4 percent; back then, 5.2 percent.

We are spending less proportionately today on our military, despite the fact that we face a wider range of threats across the globe. That should be troubling to every American.

Let's think about the threat environment we faced 30 years ago: the Soviet Union. That was about it. There was no ISIS or al-Qaida or other radical Islamic terrorist organizations threatening the United States 30 years ago. Iran was not an existential threat to the American people 30 years ago. North Korea wasn't developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles 30 years ago. China was not on the radar as it relates to a military power 30 years ago. We weren't worried about cyber attacks or cyber espionage 30 years ago.

It is safe to say the world was a lot different 30 years ago, yet we were devoting a greater portion of our Federal budget to the military. We must make that same or an even greater commitment today. For too long, we, in Congress, have allowed our military to steadily atrophy, bringing us to a readiness crisis. Providing for our national defense is the most important job of this Congress, and this bill helps rebuild, repair, and reform our military.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 440 and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, now that the gentleman's motion to adjourn has been defeated by a wide, bipartisan majority, the House can get back to work and do the people's business. I want to go back over some statistics we talked about earlier. This rule makes in order for floor consideration 210 amendments which are on top of the 275 amendments that were offered in the Armed Services Committee.

Now, let's go back to the days when the NDAA was considered on this floor and this floor was under the majority's control on the other side of the aisle. Let's start with 2007. 135 amendments were offered; only 50 were made in order.

In 2009, 129 amendments were offered; only 58 were made in order.

In 2010, 129 were offered; only 69 were made in order.

In 2011, 193 were offered; only 82 were made in order.

And we are making in order in this rule, and yesterday's rule, 210. This has been an open process by any measure.

The gentleman also referred to the fact that there are other needs in America that are not being met because we are spending money on defending the United States of America.

Let me go back and remind what I said earlier. Only 16.8 percent of next year's Federal outlay will go to defending America if we adopt the National Defense Authorization Act as passed by the committee, less than 20 percent. That means almost 85 percent of Federal outlays are going to go to every other thing that we do in government. If there is a problem with something not being paid for, it is not because of the money we are spending on national defense.

Then finally, the gentleman's comments about the need for us to make sure that we are properly authorized as we engage in military activities abroad; I do agree with him. We have had some mission creep over the last several years. We have gone from Iraq and Afghanistan, under President Obama, to Syria, to Libya, to Yemen, and many of us on both sides of the aisles decried the fact that we did that.

It is, indeed, our responsibility, not the President's responsibility, to declare war, to authorize the use of military force. That is why this rule makes in order an amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) that will set in place a process that will lead to the consideration on this floor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

So I believe this rule does exactly what the people of America expect us to do, and that is to stay in this room, stay on this floor, and act on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. Workforce training is very important, and that is why we passed on this floor a few weeks ago the reauthorization of the Perkins Act--not by a bipartisan majority, by a 100 percent vote.

We have other bills that we are considering in the Education and the Workforce Committee that will deal with that because it is important that we build the workforce in America. But you don't do that in the National Defense Authorization Act. That is what we are here today about.

I am afraid my colleagues on the other side have forgotten what this bill is about. It is about making the people of America safe and secure. We will deal with those other issues, as important as they are, in other legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I think that his issue comes within the broader question about the authorization of military force in various parts of the Middle East. I think he raises an important point. There is an amendment made in order under this rule that will put in place a process to get us to that debate.

I appreciate what he just said. I hope that he will hold that idea, and when we have that debate on the floor, will bring it back so we can consider it among those other items we will consider at that time. I appreciate what he just said. This is not the place or the time to take that up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really believe very strongly we need to do more in workforce training in America. I am a former chancellor of postsecondary education, former chair of workforce development for the State of Alabama. It is something that is very near and dear to me. I know that we are working very hard on these issues and have already produced this one bill, the Perkins bill that we passed in the absolutely 100 percent vote here on the floor. There will be more coming.

But the National Defense Authorization Act authorizes what our military does and doesn't do and how it does it around the globe. This is a separate, different vehicle designed to provide for the defense of the American people.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We need to take those comments up at another time as we take into consideration other bills that work on our workforce development.

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

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

I remind all of us that the war in Afghanistan was authorized by an AUMF that was passed by Congress in 2001. So while we can have a debate about the other conflicts in other places, that conflict is, indeed, authorized, and has been authorized from the very beginning. So I would take exception to the gentleman's comments with regard to Afghanistan.

There are provisions in the underlying bill that this rule makes in order and in those provisions that do things to help with that war effort, help the men and women over there fighting that war effort for us.

So I think that this rule and the bill that underlies it are doing exactly what they should do with regard to Afghanistan, because Afghanistan is authorized.

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

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Most of those issues, if not all of them, were brought up in committee when this bill was considered as amendments, and they were defeated in virtually all cases by a bipartisan vote.

I appreciate the fact that she voted for the overall bill, as did everybody but one Member after you take it all into consideration, because that is what this bill is about. We are authorizing a broad swath of the defense of this country. There are a lot of moving parts to it.

Not everything in a bill this big is going to be satisfactory to everybody on the committee. I can pick out one or two things I don't like about it. But as a whole, it does the job that needs to be done for the people that we depend upon to defend America.

So I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, but most of all, I appreciated her vote at the end of the day when we approved that bill after markup in committee.

Now, I do want to respond to one thing that the gentleman from Massachusetts said. He talked about, we are still there fighting the Taliban. The 2001 AUMF specifically references the Taliban.

So we can talk about how things in Syria that President Obama did, things in Libya that President Obama did, things in Yemen that President Obama did are outside the AUMF that was adopted in 2001 with regard to Afghanistan, and I think that is a legitimate debate. But there is no legitimate debate about whether or not the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and our involvement with it has been authorized, because it has been authorized for 16 years.

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

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

The gentleman said we can't debate anything. The rule we passed yesterday makes in order 210 different amendments to be debated on top of the general debate of the bill itself. And that is on top of 275 amendments in the committee of jurisdiction, the Armed Services Committee.

This is the most debated piece of legislation we have every year, and it should be for the very reasons the gentleman from Massachusetts itemized, because what we are doing here is of profound importance.

Now, I know that there are other issues that people try to stick into this bill every year that, frankly, distract us from the underlying importance of the bill; and that is, we are trying to do everything we possibly can to protect the American people. The threats the American people face today are more diverse, more profound than we have seen since the end of World War II.

So, yes, this bill authorizes a lot of very important and expensive things. I acknowledge they are expensive. But it is even more expensive if we don't do them, or don't do them right, and we leave the American people exposed.

Just take into account one of our threats, Kim Jong-un in North Korea. That missile test he did recently was an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile. He does not need such a missile to hit South Korea or Japan. He needs that missile to hit us, to hit Alaska, to hit the West Coast of the United States, and ultimately to hit the entirety of the United States.

It is a direct threat to the safety of the people of the United States. This bill authorizes an increase in missile defense, just one of the things that it does.

So I hope that all of us will take the many things that we are going to debate here over the next several days very seriously and that we will come to the bipartisan conclusion, as we did in the committee, that when you take the totality of this bill together after you have gone through all of these amendments, it does the most important thing we are here to do, which is to defend the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 440 and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 431 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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, House Resolution 431 provides for full consideration, including making six amendments in order to H.R. 23, the Gaining Responsibility on Water Act, and allows us to begin consideration of H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

H.R. 23 is legislation necessary to deal with the severe water supply crisis facing California and other Western States. The region has experienced the worst drought in over 1,000 years, and many Western communities have been very negatively impacted.

This commonsense legislation fixes the broken regulatory system that is only exacerbating the impact of the drought conditions. The current regulatory system is overly complex and inconsistent. Making matters worse, various court decisions have only further complicated efforts to resolve these issues.

For example, this bill will help bring California's water infrastructure into the 21st century. The current water storage and delivery system is designed to serve approximately 22 million people, but the State currently has 37 million residents.

The bill is not only important to people in California. In fact, around half of our Nation's fruits and vegetables come from California. Every American could be hit in the pocketbook at the grocery store or checkout line if the California drought is allowed to continue.

Through this legislation, we can help expand water infrastructure and allow for greater water conveyance while ensuring environmental and water rights protections. Passing H.R. 23 will directly help address the drought crisis and benefit families, farms, the environment, and the American economy.

The rule also allows us to begin consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. The bill provides for general debate and makes in order 88 amendments, including 41 minority amendments and 20 bipartisan amendments. Another rule is expected tomorrow to provide for consideration of additional amendments.

This open process actually started in the Armed Services Committee on which I serve. At the committee level, 275 amendments were offered, and 231 amendments were adopted during our committee markup last month.

I have said this many times on this floor, but it is worth saying again: there is no greater responsibility of the Federal Government than to provide for the safety and security of the American people. This year's NDAA does just that by reforming, repairing, and rebuilding the United States military.

The bill addresses the realities of the dangerous threat environment facing our Nation and ensures our troops and their families have the necessary resources and benefits.

Over the last decade, we have cut our military at an alarming rate. As the threats rack up, we have planes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, and soldiers who can't deploy. We must reverse this readiness crisis.

Thankfully, there is bipartisan support for boosting our Nation's military. In fact, this bill passed out of the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 60-1, continuing a strong bipartisan tradition of passing NDAAs.

I want to briefly highlight just a few of the positive provisions of this legislation.

The bill increases total military spending by 10 percent to rebuild the military from the current readiness crisis. This includes increasing the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Army Guard and Reserve, Naval and Air Reserve, and Air Guard.

Given the serious threat posed by North Korea, the bill boosts missile defense programs, including adding an additional $2.5 billion above the President's budget request.

The bill also authorizes the construction of 13 new Navy ships, including three more littoral combat ships, as we work to grow toward a 355-ship fleet. It funds a 2.4 percent pay raise for our troops and extends special pay and bonuses for servicemembers.

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

Given the evolving threats related to cyber, the bill improves the oversight of cyber operations.

The bill also helps set policy for the U.S. military relating to Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Russia, Africa, and the Asian Pacific region.

All told, this bill achieves important priorities of reforming, repairing, and rebuilding our military.

Each and every day, more than 2 million men and women put on the uniform of the United States and serve our country. As we have seen by two recent tragedies, the Marine plane crash in Mississippi and the USS Fitzgerald collision off the coast of Japan, these individuals put their lives on the line in order to protect the freedoms we all hold dear. They deserve the resources necessary to fulfill their mission and the benefits worthy of those who sacrifice so much.

So I am hopeful we can continue to move forward in a bipartisan manner to pass this NDAA, to support our troops, and to fulfill our constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 431 and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman referred to what this would do to the budget. I would point out to the gentleman, and I think I did this in committee yesterday, that if this is passed, it will only be 16.8 percent of total Federal outlays, which means the single most important thing that we do here in government only gets less than 20 percent of the money that we are going to spend. So I don't think it is asking too much of ourselves, as the people responsible for providing for the defense of America, that we spend 16.8 percent of all the Federal money we are going to spend next year on making the American people safe and secure.

He spoke about tradeoffs. Let me tell you one tradeoff I don't think any of us should be willing to make, and that is trading off the safety and security of the American people for trying to keep some other overspending in some other part of the budget going.

We need to focus today, and in this bill, on what it takes to authorize the defense and the safety and security of the American people, and I believe this bill does that, as did all but one of my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee.

So I believe that we have struck the appropriate balance here that does all that. Yes, we have got some budget things we need to take care of. That is for later. For today, we are going to focus on defending the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin

Scott), my colleague on the Armed Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Arizona.

This was not done in the middle of the night in secrecy. This was done in full committee with cameras watching us, and done early in the evening with full debate, so I disagree with him about that.

Let's talk about the wall for a second.

I support President Trump and what he is trying to do with the wall. I hope we get to a point where we can deal with that.

This is a defense authorization bill. This is not a wall authorization bill. The wall is already authorized. We don't need an authorization bill for the wall. It is already there. The next step for us to take for the wall is an appropriations bill, and this is not an appropriations bill.

So what the Rules Committee has done is made it clear that we are not going to deal with the wall one way or the other in the National Defense Authorization Act. That is not the proper place for it. That is not the proper place to be spending money for it. There is another part of our budget, another law for us to deal with there.

So I hope that we all will understand that what we have done is made it clear there is nothing in this bill--nothing--about a wall, nor should there be anything in this bill about a wall, because that is for another committee, another bill, another time, and another place.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), our newest member of the Armed Services Committee and the Rules Committee.

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

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and concerns about protecting all of our privacy on the internet. I think we all should be about that. But instead of having a misguided and unauthorized regulatory action that left vast gaps in this system, we should have a comprehensive bill to deal with it. That bill is not before the House today.

What is before the House today in this rule are two bills: one that deals with the drought in the West, which is very important; and the second is provide for the safety and security of the American people. So that is what we are here today about.

I appreciate her concerns about that. I join with her, and I hope that we have a bill on this floor that comprehensively deals with the issues that she brought up, but now is not the time, these are not the bills, and this is not the rule to deal with it.

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

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

I strongly agree with my colleague from Vermont's remarks regarding the Budget Control Act. It was passed for a good intention, but it has worked out quite differently from what people thought it was going to accomplish.

It is time for us to take responsibility, as the gentleman from Vermont said, and to do what we are supposed to do to make the priority decisions about what is important for America and what is not. Providing for the safety and security of the people of America, that is important. And if we have to make cuts in other parts of our budget to make sure we are doing that, first and foremost, I am happy to do it.

The gentleman is absolutely right about micromanagement. We have been micromanaging the people that we charge with defending America with how they are going to carry out combat responsibilities, particularly in the Middle East. President Trump, I think, quite rightly, has delegated many of those decisions down to Secretary Mattis so that our combatant commanders can make the decisions they have got to make as and when they need to make them.

I understand what he is saying about the State Department budget, something that we all should be concerned about. The appropriate time to talk about that is when the appropriations bill for the State Department is here, not when we are talking about the National Defense Authorization Act.

Finally, with regard to Afghanistan, which if I may make a little bit broader and talk about the Middle East in general, it is time for a new AUMF. The AUMFs that were passed in this Congress over 15 years ago were for a different time, with different circumstances altogether. And I do sense

a bipartisan urging for us to do that, but this is not the right time for us to do it on this particular piece of legislation.

I hope that at a future time the Foreign Affairs Committee, that has appropriate jurisdiction over that issue, will come forward with an AUMF that we can all discuss because we are now not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are in Syria, we are in Yemen, we are in Libya, we are in Somalia, where we have had some past history that is not so good.

We all--everybody, not just from the Armed Services Committee--need to understand these threats to our country and what we are going to do about them, have a strategy with a clear endgame, which we need and we haven't had for the last several years.

Then we should authorize it because only Congress has the power to declare war. We should authorize it. And by authorizing it, we not only take responsibility, but we communicate to our friends and our foes alike, and to those servicemen and -women who put themselves at risk out there that we are behind it. We, as the Representatives of the American people, are behind it. So I hope that we can do that, but it won't be in this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

If I may make sure that we are all clear about where we are on the START; the START runs through 2021. That is 4 years from now. What the bill says is that if we find that Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty--and there is some indication that that is true--that we wouldn't extend it beyond 2021. But that is 4 years from now.

So what does that mean?

This is a shot across the bow to Russia. We are telling Russia: If you continue to violate the INF Treaty, we are not going to extend with you on START.

This is telling them: We are not going to let you get away with this.

And I would think, at this point, after all that we have heard, we would want to stand up to Russia, and this is a very vital way to do that.

Secondly, about the GTMO issue that he brought up, there are two amendments made in order by this rule for us to discuss GTMO, and I believe we are going to have that debate tonight. Now, I don't agree with the amendments, but we made them in order so we can have that debate on this floor.

So we are going to debate GTMO. My prediction is that we are going to defeat both of those amendments, but the people on the other side of the aisle have been given a great opportunity to make their argument that we shouldn't do that.

Nukes. Why are we trying to modernize our nuclear force?

Because our adversaries are modernizing theirs, and if we don't, we are not doing the proper thing to protect the people of the United States.

And then the gentleman talks about the budget bills. Now, there is a budget bill coming. Now, the budget bill is for the next fiscal year, October 1, 2017. That is several weeks from now. We have got time to pass a budget for next fiscal year.

But the way we have everything set up here, we try to move these defense bills about this time of year so that we can do what we have got to do to make sure we have communicated to the military what they are going to have to do their jobs.

If I may walk briefly around the world to remind us about where we are. Kim Jong-un has continued to test missiles throughout last year and this year, and he is getting better. And what he seeks is not just to strike South Korea or Japan, he wants to strike America. That is why you have an ICBM if you are in North Korea.

We need to step up to the plate and do more in missile defense and more in other things to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect America from an attack from North Korea.

China wants to take control of the South China Sea and the East China Sea. What does that mean to us for America?

Forty percent of the trade in the world moves through those two oceans. The greatest population center in the world is right there. It is where we want to do more business, where people there want to do more business with us; and not having a robust military presence there means we cede that part of the world to China.

I guess we could pull back to where we were on December 6, 1941, when we didn't have a presence in Guam and Japan and South Korea and Singapore. Or we could take the understanding from what happened that terrible day on December 7, 1941, that we have to be thinking now for the challenge to us then and, by making those preparations and making sure we have the defense in place, we keep December 7, 1941, from happening again.

Then we have our good friends in Russia, as they push not only into Eastern Europe, but now into the Middle East. It used to be we thought that Russia was kind of off the table; you know, the Soviet Union collapsed; didn't have to worry about Russia anymore.

Russia is back. They are back in many different military ways, in their navy, in their missiles, and what they are doing with their armed forces, including the little green men in Ukraine. We need to take that threat seriously, as we haven't had to take it for years.

And then there is the Middle East. We know what is happening today in Mosul and in Raqqa. Perhaps ISIS is being pushed out of those places, but it is not disappearing. It is not going away as a threat, any more than al-Qaida has gone away as a threat. We still have terrorist groups like them and others who seek to do harm to the American people, whether it is over there or over here, and we have to provide for the defense against that.

Then there is Iran; Iran that, because of an ill-considered agreement reached with them by the Obama administration, now is on a path to get an ICBM of its own, which it doesn't need to strike Israel. It needs an ICBM to strike us.

Then they get as close as they want to under that agreement that we reached with them. Right up to the edge of violation, where they perfect their nuclear technology, they decide in a short period of time to violate it, put a nuclear weapon on one of those ICBMs and threaten us directly.

That and a host of other threats are what we are talking about in this bill. We have never faced such a complex set of threats since the end of World War II. It is not my word. It is the word of countless experts who have come before our committee.

We have to do this. The American people expect us to do this. Like many other people in this body, I do tele-townhalls. At my last two tele-townhalls, I have asked this open-ended question: What is the most important issue to you?

We give them a broad range of issues to pick from: healthcare, tax reform, you name it. The number one issue in those two tele-townhalls, by far, for the people in my district was national security. They see what is happening in North Korea. They see what is happening in the Middle East. They know what Russia is up to. They are worried about China, and they want to know what we are doing.

This bill that this rule provides for does what we need to do to protect the American people. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything that I have heard today from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because I know people on both sides of the aisle care a great deal about these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 431 and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. We have debated this issue for years now, and every year we successfully maintain the prohibition on transferring dangerous detainees out of

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 37 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, July 13, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 11 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 12, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I am proud to rise in support of this strong, bipartisan legislation.

Improving career and technical education programs is the most important thing Congress can do to help close the skills gap, combat poverty, and help put Americans back to work.

Studies clearly show that there are unfilled high-wage jobs out there that remain open because people lack the skills to fill the jobs. That is where CTE comes in.

When I was chancellor of Alabama's 2-year college system, I saw firsthand just how impressive these programs are. They really do work like magic by taking an untrained worker and giving him the skills he needs to fill an in-demand job. It is a win-win for everyone.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor and supporter of this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this reform-oriented bill that helps build the 21st century workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Rules Committee colleague for yielding. I am proud to support this rule and the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, last November, the American people sent a strong message: They want a secure southern border. Having a strong system of border security is critical to our national defense and the safety and the security of the American people. President Trump has asked us to get more boots on the ground protecting our border, and this bill is an important step in that process.

U.S. Border Patrol agencies are the ones serving on the front lines when it comes to border security. These hardworking men and women serve day at night at the border, at airports, and at sea and land ports in an effort to keep us safe. We should be grateful for their service and their sacrifice.

Unfortunately, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, is woefully understaffed. In fact, the numbers show that we are short 1,000 officers and 1,800 Border Patrol agents. This shortage is making it harder to secure the border and help keep bad actors out of our country.

That is where this bill comes in. It would amend the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 to provide necessary discretionary waiver authority to the CBP Commissioner in an effort to reduce the staffing shortage. The bill specifically would provide the Commissioner with the authority to waive the polygraph examinations in three circumstances.

The polygraph exam would be waived for current State and local law enforcement officers who have already passed a polygraph examination, Federal law enforcement officers who have already passed a stringent background investigation, and veterans with at least 3 consecutive years in the military who have held a clearance and passed a background check. These are three very tailored and specific circumstances, and these are exactly the

kind of men and women we want and need when it comes to border security positions.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the waiver authority granted under this bill is not mandatory. It will ultimately be the decision of the CBP Commissioner to decide on a strict case-by-case basis whether to issue a waiver. The Commissioner can order a polygraph.

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner can still order a polygraph for any applicant they deem necessary.

This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that passed out of the Homeland Security Committee on a voice vote, and I hope to see more bipartisan support here in the full House.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting a stronger and more robust border security system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I appreciate his leadership to get us here both on the Rules Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, despite what you may hear in the media, this funding bill is a positive step forward for the American people and a big win for the Trump administration. I want to highlight a few reasons why.

First, delivering on President Trump's promise, this bill makes long overdue and much-needed investments in our military. The bill boosts military spending by $21 billion, which will help boost military readiness and fund the largest pay raise for our troops in 6 years.

Importantly, the bill finally rejects demands of Democrats to only increase defense spending if all other spending is also increased. This bill ends that harmful precedent.

The bill devotes important new funding for border security. In fact, it contains the biggest increase in border security funding in almost a decade. This will allow us to make improvements to the wall at the border, put more Customs and Border Protection agents on the ground, and end the disastrous practice of ``catch and release.''

The bill includes important pro-life protections to ensure taxpayer money is not used to fund abortions. Just as important, the bill does not contain a penny of funding for Planned Parenthood. I am going to say it again: there is not a penny in here for Planned Parenthood.

The bill includes important Second Amendment protections, increases funding to help fight crime, supports funding for Israel, provides money for missile defense, and sets aside additional resources to defeat ISIS.

Even more, the bill cuts funding to the EPA, freezes funding for the IRS, and reduces the Federal Government's role in education.

Finally, the bill makes progress and priorities important to my folks in southwest Alabama. For example, the bill fully funds three littoral combat ships, which are built, in part, by Austal USA in Mobile. These ships are critical to the United States Navy and are necessary if we are to reach the 355-ship fleet that President Trump wants. This funding bill will ensure we continue to build these first class vessels in Mobile.

The bill also includes a provision important to our red snapper fishermen. With the help of Senator Richard Shelby, we were able to secure a permanent expansion of State waters out to nine nautical miles.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect--no compromise ever is--but I commend President Trump in negotiating a good bill to begin the process of implementing the priorities the American people sent him and us to Washington to accomplish.

President Trump has called on Congress to pass this funding bill while we work to make even more progress in the upcoming fiscal year 2018 funding negotiations. I intend to do just that, and I call on my colleagues to do the same.

I am glad to support President Trump, this rule, and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of a true American hero, a dedicated veteran, and a successful businessman.

Major John Jacobson enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1940 and fought in World War II, where he served as quartermaster to General George Patton.

After his military career, he moved to Kansas and built a Fortune 500 company and became a leader in the meat-packing industry.

After retiring and moving to coastal Alabama in 1999, Major Jacobson became a local celebrity. Mr. Jack, as he was affectionately known, spent much of his time working with local veterans organizations where he would speak with school groups about World War II and the sacrifice our veterans make.

Sadly, he recently passed away at the age of 106, making him one of the country's oldest World War II veterans.

Mr. Speaker, all you need to know about Major Jacobson is that he lived his life by a simple motto: Another day to live is another day to serve.

To his family, thank you for sharing Mr. Jack with all of us. He made our community, the United States, and the world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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, House Resolution 299 provides for the consideration of H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act. This resolution provides for a closed rule since no amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the workforce of the 21st century is a lot different from the workforce of the thirties and forties when many of our Nation's labor laws were first written. As such, many of these laws are outdated and out of touch with the realities facing today's workers.

For example, in nearly half of two-parent households, both Mom and Dad work full time. That is up from roughly 30 percent in 1970. Meanwhile, millennials now represent the majority of the workforce.

Given the changes in the workforce, there are new challenges related to the work-family balance. From children's field trips, to taking care of an elderly family member, to a single parent juggling different tasks while their spouse is on a military deployment, the demands are greater than ever. That is where the Working Families Flexibility Act comes in.

This commonsense bill would improve the quality of life for many hardworking men and women by removing outdated Federal restrictions imposed solely on the private sector.

Already, workers in the public sector at the Federal, State, and local level have the ability to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay if they prefer. This bill would give that same option to workers in the private sector.

Here is how it would work. An employee and their employer would come together and mutually agree to enter an arrangement where the employee would receive time and a half in time off or comp time instead of time- and-a-half overtime pay. In other words, employees would have the choice between paid time off and cash wages for working overtime.

As I mentioned, this provision is already available for workers in the public sector. That is because, in 1985, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to give public sector employees greater flexibility. In fact, in a report filed by the House Education and the Workforce Committee more than 30 years ago, our Democratic colleagues wrote that this change in law recognized the ``mutual benefits'' of comp time for State and local governments and outlined the ``freedom and flexibility'' comp time would offer public sector workers.

Shouldn't workers in the private sector be entitled to the same freedom and flexibility given to government workers?

Now, I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say this bill is somehow bad for workers. That could not be further from the truth. Let me clear up some of the false information put out by union bosses and special interest groups.

First, this proposal is completely voluntary. Both an employee and an employer would have to agree to a comp time agreement, and their agreement would have to be put in writing.

Second, no employer can coerce or intimidate their employees into taking comp time. An employee who feels they have been mistreated can file a charge with the Department of Labor, at no cost, or they can bring their own legal action. Employers who take advantage of their employees would face the same penalties as they would for other wage violations.

Now, as a labor and employment attorney, I have been a part of these kind of legal matters in the past, and I can honestly say that no sensible employer would take advantage of an employee and risk double damages, exorbitant attorney fees, and a legal battle with the Federal Government.

Third, employees have control over when to use their comp time, as long as reasonable notice is given and the request doesn't unduly disrupt the workplace. This is the same standard used in the public sector, and it is the same standard used under the Family and Medical Leave Act. I imagine it is also

the same standard used in each of our congressional offices.

Fourth, this bill includes a 5-year sunset that would require Congress to come back and reaffirm this law after reviewing the impact of comp time. This would give us the ability to change the law based on the real-world impact.

Fifth, the bill would set the maximum comp time accrual amount at 160 hours, which is less than what is allowed in the public sector. This provision was actually included after Democrats expressed concerns that workers would accrue too much comp time.

Sixth, an employee has the right to cash out their comp time at any time and for any reason. This is a decision that the employee alone can make. Additionally, at the end of the year, employees would receive a cash payment for any unused hours.

Finally, this is not a far-fetched or radical idea. In fact, President Bill Clinton had his own comp time proposal during his Presidency.

So this bill is great for workers and actually gives them greater choice and flexibility in the workplace. In fact, our committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, heard a real-life example of how comp time would make life easier for families during a recent hearing on the bill. We heard about a clerical worker for a mental health company who recently found out she was pregnant and was putting in a lot of overtime during a transition to a new computer system. This mom-to-be simply wanted to waive the overtime pay and, instead, be credited the time for maternity leave.

As her human resources professional testified: ``I had to explain to her that we were unable to do so because it was against the law. It was difficult conveying this message to this single mom-to-be who felt she should be allowed the option to choose for herself whether to take the overtime pay or paid leave when her child was born.''

That is why this bill is necessary, for people like this working mom. That is how this bill will make a real difference.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know comp time won't work for every worker or family, so if an employee wants to continue receiving time-and-a-half overtime pay, then they can continue to do so and this bill will have no impact on them. But this bill would create a new option for employees to better meet the needs of the 21st century workforce. Workers today want and need the type of freedom and flexibility that this bill provides. This bill would allow a working mom or dad to put in a little extra time at work in order to have that time off to attend a child's baseball game, dance recital, or field trip. This is all about freedom, flexibility, fairness, and choice.

Certainly, more work and changes will be needed as we adapt to the workforce of the 21st century, and I look forward to learning more about proposals from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But the simple fact that there are other proposals out there should not stop us from passing this commonsense bill to give working families the flexibility they need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 299 and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman referred to an old playbook being used here. He is right. It is an old playbook. It is a playbook that was used by House Democrats in 1985, by President Bill Clinton during the 1990s. This is not a partisan playbook. This is actually--or used to be, actually--a bipartisan idea to give workers flexibility in the use of their time. That doesn't sound radical to me. It is not radical at all.

What has changed is Democrats used to be for this, and now, for whatever reason, they are not. They would rather lock workers into these restrictive arrangements where you have working mothers, like the one I used in my initial remarks, who can't get their flexible time off that they want because we do not allow them to do that under the Federal Labor Standards Act.

Comp time is just not technically optional, as my friend said, under this

law. It is optional by law. It is a voluntary thing by law. There is no question about that. Employers cannot coerce or intimidate an employee to do that under this law. It is strictly prohibited, and there are serious legal repercussions for an employer who attempts to do that.

There are no differences in the protections for someone under this bill and the protections that public employees have when they seek to have this sort of flextime under the laws that pertain to them. It is the same protection. So it doesn't matter whether you are in the private sector or the public sector; under this bill, you are going to be protected.

Let me tell you something, as someone who has practiced in this area. It is not an idle threat to an employer to face a regulatory proceeding from the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor or to face a private lawsuit. Those are a big deal. If you lose, you have to not only pay double damages, you have got to pay the employees' attorneys fees, which can be significant. No sensible employer is going to go out there and intimidate and coerce and think they can get away with it. They can't.

Wages, under our bankruptcy laws, are the first priority of what is paid out during the winding up of a bankruptcy proceeding. Before any other creditor is paid, wages get paid. In my experience, I don't remember wages ever not being paid in a bankruptcy. That is always assumed. They get taken care of quickly. Most employers do the right thing.

My friend talked about employers needing to do the right thing. Most employers do the right thing. Just like I know my colleague, when he had a business in the private sector, did the right thing by his employees. Most employers do. Yet too often in this body, we act as if the assumption is that employers are going to do the wrong thing, and then we come down with this heavy-handed overregulation, punitive approach that restricts the freedom of both employers and--let's get back to it--the workers themselves to work these things out.

This is a commonsense solution to a real problem in the new workplace of the 21st century, where most moms and dads are working and where we have this new millennial generation that wants flexibility. They expect it. When you go to them and tell them: Oh, you can't have it because it is a Federal law, they don't understand.

I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand. Yes, I understand that this law was put together in the 1930s. Maybe it made sense for the workplace in the thirties, but it doesn't make sense for the workplace of the 21st century.

I am disappointed in my colleagues who used to be in favor of these sorts of flexible arrangements and no longer favor it, but I get that. I hope that the rest of us will use our common sense and use what we all know is really happening in the workplace today and support this very important bill.

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

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

My colleague from North Carolina and I worked together on many things, and I have great respect for her, but I think her argument ignores a very important fact about this bill, and that is that you can't be coerced into doing this. You have to do it voluntarily.

If you would rather get your time and a half in pay, that is your decision. You are going to get it. The law requires that. There is nothing that forces anybody to get that.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my friends on the other side of the aisle don't understand how this works. An employee comes to their supervisor or the person who runs the HR office in the company and says: I would like to get some comp time in return for the overtime I am getting ready to work because I have got a specific reason to want to use it. The employer says: Okay, when do you want to get the overtime and when do you want to take the comp time? They work that out.

The employer has the responsibility for having the system and the paperwork for showing that they have complied with the law. From an employer's point of view, that is an extra burden. It is really not in the interest of an employer to do this. An employer would really prefer to say: Look, I don't want to have to do this, because if I make a mistake, I am going to get in trouble with either a private lawsuit or the Department of Labor. So it is really better for the employer not to have this option because it is not going to be an option in which they can make a mistake.

This is for that employee to get the comp time so they can have some flexibility in their schedule. That is who it is for. If they don't want to use it, they don't have to use it. They can still be paid the time and a half that they are paid today. No one can coerce them. The law says you can't do that, and there are real penalties for it.

To the contrary, when we are hearing that somehow this is something for the employers, no, it is not. This is for the workers--the new workers of the 21st century, who sometimes I think we have forgotten about when we have these debates in this body.

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

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

I would say to my colleague and to the House, I did indeed have 11 townhalls 2 weeks ago after the bill he references passed. It didn't come up one time because the American people understand what that was all about, that there were two different Federal agencies battling over something, and it didn't even solve the problem. The agency that put that regulation out didn't have the authority to do it, and it didn't solve the problem. The American people are sick and tired of agencies that don't have the authority to go out there and they do something, and it doesn't solve the problem.

If we want to get to the issue that my friend wants to get to, which I think is important, we ought to get to, let's work together in a bipartisan fashion and come up with a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that addresses that. I would really like to be a part of that.

But that is not what we are here today about. We are here today about this bill to provide flexibility to working people in the 21st century, particularly millennials.

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

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

I thank Congresswoman Roby for being the sponsor of this bill and bringing it forward. As a young woman herself, she understands what's going on in the workplace with people her age and how they try to juggle all the demands of their time. She has come up with a very commonsense approach to how we can deal with this in a way that makes sense for everybody.

We just heard a lot about the labor movement and big bosses. I got transported back in my mind. You would have thought we were in the 1930s and 1940s. I don't know if my colleague from Colorado has been paying attention, but union membership is at its lowest level since the 1940s right now because, even after 8 years of the most pro-union administration in decades, union membership continues to fall, and it continues to fall because workers in America aren't buying what they are selling because a lot of what they are selling is exactly what we hear is the opposition to this bill, which is: Let's limit people; let's restrict people; let's come up with all these things to tell them what they can't do instead of telling them what they can.

What the American people want, what I heard in my townhall meetings, they want the government off their back so that they can make their own choices and live their lives the way they want to live them. This is really true with the millennial generation.

I have four children who are adults right now. They are millennials. They really want to have flexibility in their lives, and this bill, Congresswoman Roby's bill, gets a little way toward that. I don't see why we would be against trying to give not just young workers, but all workers, that flexibility.

I have heard the arguments, and I have heard them several times now. I have just got to tell you, they make no sense to me. Perhaps they are something that made sense 50, 60, 70 years ago, but they don't make any sense in 2017. It is a different time. It is a different day. Let's give the workers of America some freedom and flexibility because that is what they really want.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 299 and the underlying bill.

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