Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I had intended to vote ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 18.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.

I have heard from people today who voted ``yes'' on Mattis and now they are ``no;'' or they voted ``no'' on Mattis and now they are a ``yes.'' I guess that makes me a model of consistency because I am a ``yes'' and a ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, we should vote ``yes'' to give this waiver because, as Mr. Hoyer has just said, the security needs are pressing upon us. We can't take weeks and weeks to get this person installed. So we need to act quickly and we need to have a waiver rather than starting all over again in this process.

The other thing is Mr. Austin has been out of the military for almost 5 years. Under the law, there is a 7-year cooling off period. Five years, in my mind, is almost as good as 7 years.

I mean, what is magic about 7 years?

Is 6 years and 10 months not good enough, but 7 years and 1 month is good enough?

There is a little arbitrariness involved here when choosing 7 years in the first place. I believe that 5 years--almost 5 years is sufficient for Mr. Austin to have cooled off.

We had a roundtable today in committee. I thank the chairman for having that roundtable. We heard from Mr. Austin. He very eloquently stated, yeah, he could stand up to people who were in the military. He can tell them what is good for the civilian control of our country. I trust him. He is the right man for the job.

Our security needs are too pressing to keep dilly-dallying on this. Let's vote ``yes'' on this issue and supply the waiver today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize American Legion Post 5 in downtown Colorado Springs on their 100th Anniversary.

Since its founding, Post 5 has been a consistent advocate for our incredible military community in Colorado Springs. Post 5 helped the ``Pikes Peak or Bust'' Rodeo become a huge success. Their group led a campaign to elevate Medal of Honor recipient Floyd K. Lindstrom's memory which led to a VA outpatient clinic being named after him.

American Legion Post 5 is a steadfast advocate for veterans and their families. The group hosts memorial services, supports homeless and impoverished veterans by sponsoring food and toy drives, and is a place for the veterans community to join together in fellowship to discuss important issues pertaining to their lives. As we celebrate our veterans' service to our great nation, we must thank this inspiring organization for their tremendously important service to our veterans in Colorado's 5th Congressional District. Please join me in wishing American Legion Post 5 a happy centennial anniversary.

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

The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

This is a dangerous amendment. The Trump administration withdrew from the INF Treaty because Russia had been cheating on this treaty for years. The only country that was in compliance with the INF Treaty was the United States, and we were handcuffing ourselves by putting limitations on our ability to respond to threats from Russia or China since we were the only country in the world complying with it.

China was not a signatory to the INF Treaty. This was, like was said, signed 32 years ago. China was not the military power that it is today. It was not a party to this treaty.

Going forward, I would love to see some kind of treaty between the U.S. and Russia and China, but that is not in the works if this amendment is passed. This ignores China.

China has more missiles in the Pacific region than anyone else in the world. They have more, certainly, than the United States. So that is another flaw with this amendment.

Russia has been cheating on this, and to say we are going to comply with the terms of the treaty regardless of what Russia does is to reward them for their cheating.

One other key point that makes this a dangerous amendment is because it would prevent the testing necessary for the growth of our missile defense program. The INF Treaty that this would put us back into--in a backdoor kind of way--prohibits testing or deployment of missiles with the range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. Those are the kinds of tests that we need to be able to do to test our missile defense systems.

The Department of Defense stated, just a couple of days ago:

Land-based missiles required to support ballistic missile

defense system flight testing also have ranges between 500

and 5,500 kilometers. Loss of target missile capability would

likely prohibit upcoming missile defense flight tests

requiring such target missiles.

And they go on to say:

This will limit the warfighter. It will limit our missile

defense capabilities.

That is a dangerous thing.

There is some dispute over whether allies like Israel would be included in this ban of test vehicles. I will leave that for another discussion, but it is a serious issue.

It would certainly prohibit our testing of our missile defense systems between the range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. That would cripple our growth of missile defense for the future. That doesn't make the world a safer place. It certainly doesn't make the United States a safer place.

So, for all of those reasons, Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment, and I would urge that we reject it and vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would like to inquire how much time both sides have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I am going to make a brief statement and then yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

First, let me say that this doesn't just put us back in the INF, which would be bad enough. This puts us in a worse posture than the INF. This amendment is more stringent on our ability to develop our defensive capabilities than the INF would be.

Specifically, the INF has an exemption for interceptors; this does not. So we can't do interceptor tests. We could have under INF, but we can't under this amendment.

And, also, there is an exception for ballistic missiles without warheads for testing our defenses. That is in INF; it is not in this amendment. This is worse than the INF, which is bad enough.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

We have had this discussion on emoluments, and I hope that my colleague saw the newspaper today. Here is the newspaper, The Washington Times, front page: ``Court rejects lawsuit over Trump business. Maryland, D.C. slammed down.''

So, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has said one of the lawsuits out there is baseless.

But there is actually more going on here. This is kind of an embarrassing amendment. I am sorry that we are even debating this. This is a blatantly political amendment.

We are supposed to be here talking about providing the equipment and the training for our men and women in uniform, so they can preserve and save and keep our country secure, and this is just an attempt to embarrass the President.

It is a political amendment. It is really not worthy of discussion in the National Defense Authorization Act, and I don't think we should be wasting our time on this. It is really not worthy of the American people either.

Let me give an example on how silly and how ridiculous this amendment is. According to the language of this amendment, if the President goes to one of these properties and stays, like Mar-a-Lago down in Florida, I guess he could have Secret Service. They are not paid out of DOD dollars. They are paid out of Homeland Security dollars. But he couldn't take the people with him who carry the nuclear football or the communications people who keep him in touch with the command and control of our nuclear enterprise if, God forbid, there was some kind of crisis or emergency.

This has not been thought out. It is totally ridiculous. Who would want to put a President of the United States through that kind of jumping through hoops and obstacles to fulfill his duties as Commander in Chief?

I think it is ridiculous. It is not worthy of us.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Chair, I will make one brief comment and then yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Ohio.

The President isn't in this to get rich. He has given up his salary.

Mr. Chair, with that, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

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

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

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

Just like the last amendment, this is not worthy of us as a body. We should be here debating the National Defense Authorization Act; how to equip and train our men and women in uniform so they can protect our country.

This is a blatant, cheap shot against the President. It is just a political potshot, and it is really not worthy of us as a body.

This is a very poorly-written amendment, on top of all that. I think we would all agree, we shouldn't have political displays by a Commander-in-Chief, or anyone in the government, for that matter, where public dollars are involved.

But what about patriotic displays? Is there anything wrong with that?

Let me give you a couple of examples of things that would be prohibited by this poorly-written amendment.

Every year, you have the Army, Navy, and Air Force playing football against each other for the Commander's Cup. And especially when the Air Force and Navy play each other, they have these flyovers. They each have wonderful aviation capabilities, and they will do a flyover of the stadium, whether it is in Annapolis, or in my district in Colorado Springs.

This is written so broadly, you couldn't have any kind of authorized--any kind of--where's the word--exhibition. You could have no exhibition of military arms.

So if the President was attending that football game, you couldn't have the flyover. How silly is that?

Or if a President goes to a change of command down at Fort Bragg, something like that, you couldn't have the military vehicles present there that would be present normally at a change of command.

Mr. Chairman, those are just a couple of examples of how poorly written this amendment is.

So I would say, let's reject it. Let's get serious. Let's get back to the business of talking about what our men and women in uniform need, and not take these silly potshots against the President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is a member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, if you care about our warfighters who are in theater tonight, this is the worst possible cut that we could give the Department of Defense.

This says that overseas operations, where they are actually in places like Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq, we are going to take the dollars they are using to operate and stay safe and get the job done, and we are whacking one-third off of that budget. We are taking a meat-cleaver approach, not a scalpel. This is a meat-cleaver approach.

Besides the things that the chairman mentioned that would be cut working with allies, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance would be cut, ISR.

When our commanders have forces going out on a patrol, those patrols want overhead observation before them, over them, behind them. That is the kind of thing directly cut by this amendment.

When the troops come back, and the equipment has to be refurbished and reset, that is cut by this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this is a very poorly thought out amendment, and I would urge everyone to vote ``no.''

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue.

Just so everyone will know, HAATS stands for the High-Altitude Army Aviation Training Site. There is only one such site in the United States, and that is in the mountains of western Colorado, and it happens to be in Representative Tipton's district.

A lot of the people who train there with rotary aircraft come from Fort Carson, which is in my district. I know there is interest from other members of the Colorado delegation. They have had legislation that would designate nearby areas, or even that area, as a wilderness site.

But I want to talk about the importance of this to the Army. This is high-altitude training. So, for rotary wing pilots who are going to be going to places like Afghanistan, this is a unique training opportunity.

The high altitude, the change of weather, the mountainous conditions, and the valleys and hills and mountain peaks really make for an amazing training experience. And it has saved lives.

I know Representative Tipton is going to have one story. I will give another.

Just in this last couple of months, a couple of skiers from Vail were lost, and there was a search and rescue effort that was undertaken. With the help of helicopter pilots who had been trained, who were in the Army National Guard, I believe, they were able to find those skiers and rescue them without loss of life or injury, even, and it was a great success story.

That high-altitude training site has led to many lives being saved, so it is an asset for our country. It is a gem; it is a jewel; and it must be protected at all costs.

Madam Chair, I appreciate Representative Tipton's leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding and for his leadership.

Mr. Chair, as we consider H.R. 2500, the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, it is important to remember that this bill is about ensuring the men and women in our Armed Forces and their families that they have what they need to defend our great Nation. We have done well in some respects, but we have come up regrettably short in other areas vital to our military.

I am proud of the bipartisan work the Readiness Subcommittee completed under the leadership of my friend, Chairman Garamendi. We funded all MILCON projects on the unfunded requirements lists, prohibited nondisclosure agreements in privatized military family housing, directed development of a tenants' bill of rights, directed TRANSCOM to do a business case analysis before awarding a global household goods contract, and took major steps to address fluorinated firefighting foams.

This bill comes to the floor as we emerge from a dangerous readiness crisis. We have made big strides to rebuild readiness while also modernizing for near-peer competitors, but we cannot move backward now.

Secretary Mattis and General Dunford said we needed 3 to 5 percent real growth to keep our competitive edge against Russia and China. By not supporting the $750 billion request, we are not maintaining that edge.

The bill does not support strategic priorities such as hypersonic and low-yield weapons, and it fails to fund almost $1.5 billion in key readiness accounts. It also failed to fund a high-value detainee complex at Guantanamo Bay.

For these reasons, I could not support final passage of the NDAA out of committee. I am hopeful that we can improve the bill in a bipartisan way through the amendment process. Failing that, I will urge my colleagues to vote against final passage.

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

Madam Chairman, there are a number of flaws with this amendment. I oppose it, and I would ask everyone to vote ``no'' on it.

There are a number of reasons why this is not a good amendment. For one thing, what is being asked for in this amendment has already been done. I have some documents here I would like to show you.

This is the defense budget overview. It goes into exhaustive detail, thousands of line items on where the Pentagon spending is going right now--domestic, foreign, everything.

This is available to all Members of Congress. This is the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and just a smattering of other documents: the Missile Defense Review, the National Defense Strategy Commission, the Nuclear Posture Review. All of these documents do what is being asked for.

So it is unnecessary. Any Member of Congress, even if they are not on the Armed Services Committee, can come to the committee, can ask the Pentagon, can ask staff on the committee for all of these documents. These are already available. So to ask the Pentagon to regurgitate this to us is just a big waste of their time and money.

So for that reason, and there are other reasons also--I will see if there are any further arguments--this is unnecessary and wasteful, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, it is not even really easy or practical to do what the chairman and the sponsor of the amendment are just proposing. There is not a fine line between what is overseas and what is domestic. Let me give you an example.

I have a brigade combat team from Fort Carson in my district that is now in Afghanistan. One of the things that is called for to be expensed in this report is training exercises.

Okay. When the brigade combat team is in Fort Carson in Colorado training to go over to Afghanistan, at what point do you draw the line and say: Oh, that is domestic; everything beyond that is foreign?

Is it when they step on the airplane?

Is it when the airplane lands at Bagram in Afghanistan?

Is it when they start doing live-fire exercises in Colorado?

Where do you draw the line there?

This is really not even a well-written amendment. It is very impractical.

But the worst objection to this amendment is it abdicates responsibility. The chairman said let's have the Department tell us what they are doing. No, they tell us what they are doing, and we determine whether that is what they should be doing.

This amendment is calling for the national security benefits to be told us by the Department of Defense. That is our oversight role as Congress. We oversee the Department of Defense. We determine if they are giving us the national security benefits that we tell them to give us.

We don't tell them: Tell us what you are doing and tell us if what you are doing is okay and helpful. No, they tell us what they are doing. They specify, including the dollar amount, then we determine, with our oversight role, if that fulfills the national security purposes that they are supposed to be doing.

The way this amendment is written, we are abdicating that responsibility to them. They are supposed to tell us what the benefits are of what we are doing. That is Congress' role. That is not their role to tell us. That is our role as oversight.

For that reason alone, we should reject this amendment. It is an abdication of our responsibility.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to conclude, let me offer this to every Member of Congress. Almost 300 pages, with thousands of line entries, of where every dollar in the Pentagon is going, we have this information right now. Why should they have to regurgitate that for us all over again?

And then let's exercise our responsibility and not have them tell us if what they are doing fulfills national security. Tell us what you are doing, and then we will determine if that fulfills national security.

So for all these reasons, Madam Chair, I would say because it is wasteful, it is duplicative, it is impractical, and it abdicates our responsibility, I would urge that we reject this amendment.

The work has already been done. If anyone wants to show a little bit of initiative, they can get this information already. It is available. It is right here.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mrs. Nancy Dooley, cherished wife, sister, mother, grandmother, niece, aunt, and friend. Nancy was a longtime resident of Colorado Springs and passed away on Monday, April 29, 2019.

Nancy was born in 1942 in Berlin, Wisconsin. Her father was an officer in the army, and throughout her childhood, she moved with her family all over the United States and to Japan, Turkey, Germany, and Korea.

Nancy loved school and became a member of the National Honor Society when she graduated from Washington & Lee High School in Arlington, Virginia, in 1960. She had a warm, vibrant, and kind personality, and built numerous friendships throughout her life.

In 1962, Nancy married U.S. Army Captain Richard T. Lynch. She was expecting their second child when her husband was killed in action in Vietnam in September 1964. The loss was devastating, but with characteristic determination, she raised her children alone for the next several years. Nancy remarried U.S. Army Captain Thomas F. Dooley in 1968, a West Point graduate, who would later retire as a Lt. Colonel.

Nancy loved to travel and particularly enjoyed visiting France where she frequented Paris, The Paris Air Show, Southern France, Monte Carlo and most notably Omaha Beach, the site of the Normandy Invasion.

After she and her family moved to Colorado Springs, Nancy sold real estate, excelling at building relationships with her clients and different brokers. She was active in many military clubs, such as the Officer Spouse's Club. Nancy served for over fifteen years as an officer of the Cheyenne Mountain Republican Forum of El Paso County, Colorado, where she was known for her faithful spirit and diet-breaking cheesecake. One of Nancy's great loves and talents was cooking. She was also a devoted volunteer and leader in many local conservative groups and the Catholic church.

Nancy is survived by her husband (of fifty-one years) Tom, daughter Julie (John) Kummer, son Richard Lynch, II, brother Bill (Kathy) Blakefield, granddaughter Annelise Kummer, and several nieces, nephews, cousins, and friends. Nancy will live forever in the hearts of those who knew and loved her.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of U.S. Army Colonel William Henry Shaw, III. Colonel Shaw was born on May 16, 1962, in Vidalia, Ga., the eldest son of William Henry Shaw, Jr. and Nancy Peterson Shaw. Having received a Distinguished Military Award while attending North Georgia College, Colonel Shaw joined the Army in 1984 as a 2nd lieutenant in the infantry and reported to Fort Benning Georgia. As an Infantry Officer he served in both a Mechanized Infantry Battalion and as the Commander of an Airborne Pathfinder Detachment. After leaving Ft. Benning he transferred to Special Forces. Colonel Shaw retired after serving for 30 years with 25 years in the Special Forces.

Some of his assignments included assistant to the commandant at his alma mater; professor of military science at Auburn University where he earned a master's degree; missions to establish refugee camps for our Kurdish allies in the Gulf War; commander of Charlie Co. Europe based in Stuttgart, Germany; commander of SF forces in Djibouti, Horn of Africa; Battalion Commander / Deputy Commander of Combined Forces Special Operations Command (Afghanistan); and the Commander of Afghanistan National Army Special Operations Advisor Group. His last assignment was in Stuttgart as liaison between U.S. special operations and our European embassies.

During his distinguished military career, Colonel Shaw received the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, two Bronze Stars, six Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals, two Joint Service Achievement Medals, two Army Achievement Medals, the Combat Infantry Badge, Master Parachutist Badge, Military Freefall Badge, Pathfinder Badge, Air Assault Badge, Canadian, Israeli, British Airborne Badges, and Ranger and Special Forces tabs.

Colonel Shaw was a Ranger, Pathfinder, and Green Beret who loved skydiving. Nothing was ever more important to Billy than his beloved family connections as well as his countless friendships. He had the unique ability to connect with people from all walks of life and to keep those friendships strong throughout the years. Billy was a Christian, a Rotarian, N.G.C. girls' basketball trainer, an avid hunter and sportsman, a trustee of the Ligon Foundation, and an avid supporter of many veterans' organizations. He will be remembered for making a difference in this world.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, if this unanimous consent request cannot be entertained, I urge the Speaker and the majority leader to immediately schedule the born-alive bill so we can stand up and protect the sanctity of human life, and I would ask all of us to join in that request.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of Mr. David Bernhardt as the next Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. Bernhardt is uniquely prepared to ascend to this position after a career spent leading several of the Department's wings as chief of staff to the Secretary, as director of congressional and legislative affairs, and as a Senate-confirmed solicitor under President Bush. These positions encompass the policy, managerial, intergovernmental, and oversight roles any sitting Secretary needs to master.

He is ready to hit the ground running as one of the most knowledgeable and upstanding Secretaries in the Department's history.

As a Colorado native, Mr. Bernhardt has repeatedly demonstrated a capacity to translate his vast knowledge of water, public lands, and other Western resources into policies that work in our home State and throughout the West. He understands our issues, and I know

he will continue to fight for what is best for Colorado and the whole country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the committee for his leadership.

I rise to speak against this resolution, which would direct the removal of U.S. forces from Yemen. This resolution is dangerous, and the majority should immediately take this vote off of our schedule.

The majority claims to be concerned about the threat of Iranian and Russian influence around the world. If that were the case, they would not force a vote on this war powers resolution.

Let's be clear: The U.S. is not involved in hostilities in Yemen, so this resolution would set a dangerous precedent by calling into question many security agreements we have with nations around the world that do not involve hostilities. The Pentagon has repeatedly stated that America is only providing support to our allies in the region as they combat the Houthis, and everyone is trying to reduce civilian casualties. Ultimately, we want to limit Iran's ability to gain more influence in the region.

The Houthi rebels are just one part of the Iranian regime's proxy battles around the world with the ultimate goal to destroy Israel, America, and all those who share our democratic values.

Mr. Chairman, a vote for this resolution is a vote for Iran. A vote against this resolution is a vote for Israel. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous resolution, and I urge the administration to veto this resolution, if it should somehow pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 44, designating this week as National School Choice Week.

There are many paths to a successful education, including traditional public schools and charter schools, magnet schools, and homeschooling.

Finding the right path can include finding a school where a child feels safe and can build friendships, meeting the needs of a disabled child or playing to a student's strengths in a magnet school.

School choice is about empowering parents to make educational decisions for their children. It can allow minority children to escape poorly run, status quo schools.

There is no one-size-fits-all school system for our students, and I am happy to support National School Choice Week, along with every family and community that is seeking the best possible education for their children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 25th anniversary of the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition of Colorado, a leading voice for firearms rights in my congressional district. The organization's purpose is to advocate, support, and protect the right to keep and bear arms as enumerated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution and to promote the safe, responsible, and lawful use of firearms. Initially formed in 1992 as the Colorado Springs Chapter of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, in 1993, the group formed their own local organization as the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition and incorporated as a Colorado non-profit.

Since then, they have advocated for firearm rights before the Colorado Spring City Council, the El Paso County Board of Commissioners, and the Colorado General Assembly. The effect of their advocacy is far reaching: They have sponsored groups that teach young people the safe handling and storage of firearms. Additionally, they provide financial support to local gun ranges including the Cheyenne Mountain Shooting Complex at Fort Carson and previously assisted in cleanup efforts for the U.S. Forest Service Rampart Range shooting area while it was in operation.

In their monthly meetings, they promote the safe and lawful use of firearms. They invite speakers to present programs on various firearm issues, equipment, training, and techniques. Hundreds of people have benefitted from the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition of Colorado's educational and practical approach.

At their core, Pikes Peak Firearm Coalition members believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear

arms in defense of their home, person, and property and to protect against a tyrannical government. Ultimately, they believe the firearms issue to be entwined with civil rights, and object to all anti-gun proposals that limit the elderly, the poor, the handicapped, or other legally armed citizens the ability to defend themselves. Finally, they firmly believe that to control crime, we must focus on the perpetrator rather than his instrument. The irresponsible banning of a weapon based solely on emotion only serves to empower criminals, as law-abiding citizens, by definition, do not break the law.

I would like to offer my sincere congratulations on 25 years to a group that upholds and protects the Second Amendment so well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 3119) to allow for the taking of sea lions on the Columbia River and its tributaries to protect endangered and threatened species of salmon and other nonlisted fish species, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to come before the House and be on the floor tonight to commemorate National Bible Week. This is an opportunity to celebrate the tremendous influence of the Bible on the freedoms we enjoy today in America.

We are truly blessed to live in a nation where we are free to worship and read the Holy Scriptures without fear of persecution. There are many places throughout the world where such freedoms do not exist.

Americans have the right, under our wonderful system of government, to respect and study the Bible or any other system of belief if they so choose, or even none at all. That is the beauty of the American way, and I believe it all does go back to the Bible.

In 1941, as it says on the poster here, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared the week of Thanksgiving to be National Bible Week.

The National Bible Association and the U.S. Conference of Bishops have designated the specific days of November 18-24, this year, as National Bible Week. This is the week set aside to recognize the Bible as a foundational building block of American and Western civilization, the Judeo-Christian heritage, and the legacy that motivated and shaped the founding of the United States.

In this hour, we will hear from some of my colleagues here in Congress from various faith traditions and denominations speak about what the Bible means to them. We are here in keeping with tradition to recognize National Bible Week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan mentioned a few things about the founding of our country, and so I would like to mention this: Many of the early American settlers came to the New World with the express purpose of following the Bible according to the convictions of their own consciences.

One of the first acts of Congress during the tumultuous beginning of our Nation was the authorization of an American-published Bible.

The war with the British had cut off any supply of Bibles from England. Our Founding Fathers understood how important it was for the American people to have Bibles.

Robert Aitken, a private citizen, brought this need to the attention of Congress. He wrote a letter and he said: `` . . . this work is an object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings.''

In 1782, Congress reviewed, approved, and authorized the first known English language Bible to be printed in America, and that Congressional Resolution read: ``RESOLVED, THAT the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.''

Boy, what a great thing for Congress to do back in the 1700s. I wonder if the incoming Congress will recommend a Bible to the American people.

But it was certainly an important part of the founding of our country, and I am so glad we have that heritage as a country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for being here tonight and for all of his work in Congress. We are honored to have him as one of our colleagues. I appreciate his service as a veteran for many years in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk for a few minutes about an experience I had when I was younger, and then turn it over to another one of my colleagues.

When I was 18 years old and a freshman at the University of Kansas, someone asked me if I knew what the Bible was about, and I said, yeah, I know what it was about. But then I thought about it and I realized that my answer was really pretty presumptuous, because I had never actually read any of it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if this might be true for anyone who is listening today. The only honest thing I could do at that point was to read the Bible for myself. So I started by reading for myself in the Gospel of John in the New Testament. When I read it, I discovered that I hadn't known at all what the Bible was about.

In that Gospel, Jesus says: ``I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.''

And I ended up discovering a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who became my Lord and savior.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is what I know from personal experience: it is better to read the Bible for oneself, and not just take someone else's word for what is in it, or something they might read on the Internet.

For me, it made all of the difference in the world. My life has been totally different since then as a result.

As King David says in Psalms: ``The unfolding of Your words gives light, it gives understanding to the simple.''

As we celebrate National Bible Week, we remember the importance of faith in both our private and public lives; we recognize its powerful message of hope; and we cherish the wisdom of the Bible and we thank God for providing this Holy book that has truly been, as has been said already tonight, a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his contribution to tonight's Special Order.

He mentioned a passage that was also referenced by Ronald Reagan, and let me highlight that with you, because throughout American history, many of our great leaders have turned to the Bible for guidance, hope, and faith.

For instance, President Abraham Lincoln once said of the Bible, ``I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it, we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare here and hereafter are found portrayed in it.''

And another one of our greatest presidents, in my opinion, President Ronald Reagan, in his own National Bible Week declaration, which we are celebrating, wrote when he was in office: ``When I took the oath of office, I requested the Bible be opened to II Chronicles 7:14 . . . '' and we just heard

from that. And President Reagan went on: `` . . . which reads, `If my people, which are called by my Name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and forgive their sin and will heal their land.'''

The President also said: ``This passage expresses my hopes for the future of this Nation and the world.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), chairman of the Agriculture Committee and a colleague of mine on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words and for his service to our country.

The gentleman mentioned: How do we know this book is true? People put a lot of faith in it, sometimes to the point of death, but how do they know it is really true?

One reason many people respect the Bible and believe it is that it has prophesied and told future events which came true exactly as foretold. In the Old Testament, there are many predictions that were given to prove that the speaker, who claimed to be a prophet, was divinely inspired so, if and when those predictions came true, it would validate the words of that prophet; if they did not come true, it showed him to be a false prophet.

The Book of Daniel, for instance, contains scores of detailed prophecies that were literally fulfilled. Skeptics have fallen back to the position that Daniel must have written after the fact because those prophecies were so amazingly precise and did come true.

But we know, later, through history and archeology, that the Book of Daniel was found in its entirety in the Greek's Septuagint version and partially in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Both of those predated the events that were prophesied, so those prophecies were made in advance of the historical events which came true.

The rise and fall of empires, the capture and destruction of cities, and the destiny of kings all were prophesied about in minute detail. This is an example where archeology and history have literally confirmed those and hundreds of other such prophecies as having come true, which is a validation of the truth of the Bible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), the incoming chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on that important and vital piece of legislation.

I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks and his words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his remarks on Deuteronomy which contains, among others, the passages, the reciting of the Ten Commandments.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the Speaker how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone who came here. I appreciate their great comments.

Thousands of years ago, Isaiah said: ``The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.''

Civilizations have come and gone; people have come and gone; and generations have come and gone. Here we are in the year 2018 still celebrating, commemorating, and depending on the Bible, the Word of God.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4033) to reauthorize the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sponsor H.R. 4033, the National Geologic Mapping Act Reauthorization Act. This commonsense measure will continue funding for advanced digital geologic maps in three-dimensional models by reauthorizing funding for the program through 2023. An identical companion bill, S. 1787, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Murkowski and has been favorably reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Geologic maps provide valuable information needed for identifying energy, mineral, and water resources, geologic and environmental hazards, unstable grounds subject to landslides, swelling soils, floodplains, and abandoned mine lands.

With this knowledge, communities and citizens are able to plan for septic systems in rural areas, water treatment facilities, road construction and maintenance, home construction, and other infrastructure.

The Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 established the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, or NCGMP. This program allows for coordination between the United States Geological Survey and the various state geological surveys, allowing for geologic maps to be produced efficiently and cost-effectively.

The original authorizing act also created the National Geologic Database, which catalogs data on most geologic maps ever produced in the U.S., which to date has resulted in more than 100,000 products.

Each State and Puerto Rico has an advisory committee and a review panel to analyze the effectiveness of these projects. More than 8,500 new geologic maps have been produced through the NCGMP, with an average of 350 new maps and reports created each year. That is about one a day. About 53 percent of the United States now has been mapped as a result.

The benefits from this program have been felt by end users across the country. Geologic maps in Kentucky, for example, have assisted city planners, water systems developers, and producers of coal and other mineral resources. In Ohio, developers and engineers who used geologic maps were estimated to save an average of $50,000 on each project. In my home State of Colorado, this program resulted in the production of an advanced geologic map and companion report that showcased recreational and historical mining, leading to efficiency opportunities from Leadville to Salida.

Reauthorizing the National Geologic Mapping Act through H.R. 4033 will continue to provide the economic and developmental benefits of geologic mapping, with effects enjoyed across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend across the aisle, Mr. Brown, for his work on this bill. It was a good collaboration. I appreciate his remarks tonight, and I appreciate what he did. I look forward to working with him in the future.

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