Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 481 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 481, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3180, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing we do in this body that is more important than actions we take for the defense of our Nation. We now face a more complex array of threats than we have at any time since the end of World War II.

North Korea continues to test ballistic missiles, has successfully tested an ICBM, and is continuing to move rapidly towards achieving the capability to strike U.S. soil.

A resurgent Russia is imposing its will across Europe, occupies Crimea, and is now using its military to support the Assad regime in Syria.

China is increasingly belligerent, continues to expand the size of its military and create bases on artificial islands in the South China Sea.

And Iran, Mr. Speaker, continues to work on its ballistic missile program and expand its influence as it supports terror across the Mediterranean and the larger Middle East.

Terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS continue to carry out attacks across the West and threaten the United States.

We have seen a dramatic increase in tensions on the Temple Mount, Mr. Speaker, in just the last few weeks, and we have men and women in uniform deployed around the globe fighting to defend our Nation.

Our intelligence community plays a crucial role in ensuring our decision-makers and our warfighters have the information they need to keep our Nation secure.

H.R. 3180 provides the intelligence community with the authorization it needs to continue working to protect and defend the United States, supports critical national security programs, such as those protecting Americans against terrorism, cyber attacks, and hostile foreign nations. The bill maintains critical congressional oversight of the activities of the intelligence community, and the bill makes no changes to any surveillance authorities, including those set to expire, which we will take up later this year in legislation separate from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, earlier this week, H.R. 3180 was considered under suspension of the rules, which is not at all uncommon for bills, like this one, that receive unanimous bipartisan support in committee.

While the bill received well over 50 percent of the votes of the House, it did not achieve the required two-thirds majority to pass under suspension, which is why we are here today debating this rule.

A large portion of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is understandably, as it should be, classified, which requires Members of this body to review the bill in the SCIF.

I want to personally thank members of the Intelligence Committee and their staff for facilitating that process and making it so easy for Members of this House to undertake. A bipartisan notice was sent out, provided to Members, informing us of the availability of the text for review. And the text, Mr. Speaker, was available for 10 days, twice as long as last year's bill.

My staff simply had to call and inform the committee that I would like to review the bill, and the committee asked when I would be available, and they made sure that a member of the committee staff was also there to answer any questions I had.

The process itself was seamless, was very easy, and was facilitated by the members of the Intelligence Committee staff.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good and important bill. It supports the men and women in our intelligence community and the work they do to keep us safe. This is not an issue we should politicize or subject to partisan debate.

The intelligence community plays a critical role in the defense of our Nation, and we need to support them, Mr. Speaker, by supporting this bill. Therefore, I urge support for the rule to allow consideration of H.R. 3180.

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

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

My colleague from Florida, with whom I have had the privilege of spending many hours in the Rules Committee debating this and a range of other issues, raised a number of points I think that are important to clarify.

First of all on the issue of minority recruitment, last night, in the Rules Committee, in open session, Chairman Nunes was asked about this, and he testified very clearly and directly that diversity is very important, that it is mission-critical for the reasons that my colleague from Florida stated.

I can report that there are several provisions in the classified annex--I won't go into the details about them--with which my colleague may or may not be familiar that support the whole notion of Centers of Academic Excellence, which are particularly focused on recruiting young people, recruiting minorities and young people across the board for service in the intelligence community.

We tend, in these rule discussions, Mr. Speaker, to have a lot of arguments and criticism of procedure. The Democrats this morning seem to be particularly concerned about our same-day authority. But I would just note, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly confident that my constituents who are watching this--and, I would say, probably most Americans watching--would understand the importance of the House of Representatives getting its work done in a timely manner. And certainly, when it comes to healthcare, the arguments and the criticism from the other side of the aisle lose a little bit of their credibility when they simultaneously attack the Republicans for moving too slowly and then also for moving too quickly.

What I can tell you is we are debating hugely important issues and hugely important topics. We are absolutely committed to repealing and replacing ObamaCare. It is a system that is collapsing. It is a system that has devastated the lives of people across this country. It is a system that has driven premiums and deductibles through the roof. It has absolutely limited people's choice in terms of insurance plans, in terms of healthcare providers. It is a system that is failing.

We have seen the Democrats' fundamental approach was a government mandate and their attempt to force people across this Nation to buy health insurance. They thought that, through a government mandate, they would be able to force young people into these insurance pools and, therefore, drive the cost down. That is not what happened. It didn't work.

We know we have got to put in place a system that will be able to provide people the kind of care that they need, access, as well as lowering the cost and increasing availability. So there are a whole range of very important substantive efforts going on.

I think that it is clear that the folks on the other side of the aisle don't support the direction we are going in, may

not support the policy, but the people across this Nation--certainly, in my home State of Wyoming--spoke very clearly last November that they wanted a change, that they wanted to see the government reduce its role in their lives, and that they wanted to see us begin the process of building our military, rebuilding what has been lost over the course of the last 8 years, as well as rebuilding the facilities and the capabilities of our intelligence community, and that is exactly what this bill does. That is exactly what we are here doing this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is why it is so important that my colleagues support this rule, that we provide the authority that the intelligence community needs through this bill to continue to do its important work to keep us safe.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 481 and the underlying bill, H.R. 3180, ensure the men and women of our intelligence community have the tools and the resources they need to continue the vital role they play in helping us address the threats facing our Nation.

I do want to point out, Mr. Speaker, my colleague is accusing the Republicans of being brazen and reckless because of our same-day rulemaking authority. I would only note that in the 111th Congress, when they were in the majority, they enacted this process 26 times; in the 110th Congress, 17 times.

It is an important ability for us to have when we know we might need to move quickly on something. As a member of the Rules Committee, I am committed to ensuring we do everything possible to make sure that we are able to bring bills to this floor that carry out the kind of changes and improvements that the people of this Nation sent us all here to undertake.

I was really disappointed, Mr. Speaker, earlier this week when this bill was defeated under suspension of the rules. There are many things that are partisan issues in this body, and it is too bad when the minority uses the Intelligence Authorization bill as part of a political stunt to make what should be a bipartisan process and a bipartisan committee appear partisan.

The bill, H.R. 3108, received unanimous support in committee, and I certainly hope today, Mr. Speaker, that the minority members of that committee, and frankly all on the minority side who understand the importance of the intelligence community in keeping our Nation safe, will put aside the partisanship, will put aside the games that the American people are so tired of, and will join me in supporting a good, effective, and important bill, that, frankly, the minority members in the Intelligence Committee worked very hard to help craft.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 3180.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, July 28, 2017, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting with the Chief of Naval Operations. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 410.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 454 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 454, which provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act; H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act; and H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act.

Mr. Speaker, our domestic energy industry has suffered greatly over the last 8 years under outdated regulations and burdensome bureaucratic red tape that have prohibited growth and innovation. Today's rule allows for consideration of two very important bills that will provide clear and transparent policies for our pipeline permitting processes, making them more efficient and effective so that we can fully realize the North American energy boom; create American jobs; grow our economy; and strengthen our relations with our largest energy trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

The first bill, H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, is sponsored by my colleague, Mr. Flores of Texas.

This bill reinforces the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's role as the lead agency for siting interstate natural gas pipelines by directing it to identify and invite all agencies considering an aspect of an application to establish a schedule for concurrent reviews, and to impose deadlines for final decisions.

Recent advancements in energy exploration have allowed companies to tap into previously inaccessible natural gas reserves, leading to a dramatic increase in domestic production. The increased supply has lowered energy costs and increased demand for natural gas.

As a result, current U.S. pipelines are now operating near capacity, making new pipelines necessary to deliver gas to consumers across the Nation, especially to those in the Northeast and Midwest, where demand for energy is high, but where they lack the infrastructure to deliver domestic natural gas. Additionally, due to its abundance and affordability, many manufacturers are beginning to rely on natural gas as a primary fuel.

Unfortunately, the permitting process for new pipelines is arduous and unnecessarily burdensome. Currently, when siting a pipeline project, multiple permits are required, including permits under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act, for example. According to the Government Accountability Office, the average processing time from pre-filing to certification for interstate natural gas pipelines has been 558 days. We cannot afford to wait that long, Mr. Speaker.

It is critical that we expand and modernize our Nation's pipeline infrastructure to ensure the access to affordable energy and affordable prices for consumers across the country. In order to do this, we simply must promote timely and efficient reviews as well as coordination among Federal, State, and local regulators. This bill accomplishes these goals, and I support its passage.

The rule we are discussing today also provides for consideration of H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). This bill creates a uniform and transparent process to authorize the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of international transfers of oil, natural gas, and electricity imports and exports.

The bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review cross-border oil and natural gas pipelines and the Department of Energy to review cross-border electric transmission facilities, requiring the relevant official to issue a certificate of crossing, unless it is found not to be in the public interest.

Recent advances in technology, Mr. Speaker, have dramatically increased our ability to harness our vast natural resources, but the current ad hoc permitting process has inhibited energy producers from exporting American-made energy to our international trading partners and has significantly delayed recent proposals, such as the Keystone XL pipeline.

The value of energy traded between the United States and its North American neighbors exceeded $140 billion in 2015, with $100 billion in U.S. energy imports, and over $40 billion in exports. We simply cannot afford to gamble our energy security and competitiveness on an inefficient permitting process.

Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, also allows for consideration of H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). This bill authorizes an equal value land exchange to facilitate the construction of an 11-mile road linking the remote city of King Cove and the city of Cold Bay, which has a modern airport. The State of Alaska will transfer approximately 43,000 acres to the Department of the Interior to add to the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in return for 206 acres of Federal lands to build the road.

This road is critical, Mr. Speaker, because harsh winter conditions make transporting individuals in the remote King Cove community of nearly 1,000 people dangerous and sometimes fatal: gale-force winds ground planes and prevent sea travel; evacuations can take days; and the hovercraft terminal and medical facility that Congress temporarily provided funds for, in lieu of land for the road, ceased operation in 2010.

The King Cove community has been denied proper hospital care and access to essential emergency services since they began fighting for this road 40 years ago, and that, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable.

Ensuring these folks have ground transportation options for accessing the regional hub at Cold Bay, especially during harsh winters, is vital to the safety of this community in emergency situations.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage support for the rule for these important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), my friend and colleague, and the sponsor of H.R. 218.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I share my colleague's dedication to job creation, and what we know is that the kind of job creation we need in this Nation can only come with access to reliable, affordable sources of energy. Our fossil fuels in this country are a national treasure, and these bills that are being considered under this rule today are bills that would help to streamline the regulatory process.

We have been, Mr. Speaker, really facing a war on fossil fuels during the course of the last 8 years. We have seen these industries targeted, completely unfairly targeted, based on some notion that, by shutting down our fossil fuel industry, we are somehow going to be able to continue to have economic growth. We have seen the environmental officials of the previous administration even admit before this body that things like the Clean Power Plan would result, if fully implemented, in a negligible impact on the environment.

So, again, I think that it is important to recognize that it is at the center of the agenda that we are pushing forward, frankly, with historic progress in this Congress to begin to generate the kind of economic growth that we really need to get back on track.

We have been stagnant now for 8 years. We have seen overreach from the Federal Government. We have seen a situation in which companies, industry, individuals, and small businesses are strangled by regulatory red tape.

No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be oversight. No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be environmental review, but what we know is we have got to streamline it.

We cannot be in a position where bureaucrats--and, frankly, it is often unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.--impose absolutely unattainable restrictions, impose rules that our industry can't meet and prevent us from being able to have access to our own energy sources. Again, it is that reliable, affordable energy that will allow our economy to grow and bring back the jobs that the gentleman says, and to which I agree, are so important for this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

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

I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about energy. They don't want to talk about fossil fuels. They don't want to talk about how important these are to the economy.

I would propose, Mr. Speaker, maybe what we should do is turn out the lights in this Chamber. Maybe we ought to turn off the air conditioning, Mr. Speaker, and we could have the debate in the dark, which is where we would be, frankly, if we followed the energy policies in the approach of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

These bills are hugely important, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we are able to continue to get access to the energy that we need; and it is crucially important that we not skip over the burden that has been caused by the Federal Government, by the regulatory burden we have been feeling, and that we take action, as is our responsibility, to begin to help to roll back that overreach, to begin to help to provide some relief so that we can, in fact, get the jobs back that our colleagues say they desire so much and that we know we need.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

I am proud to be here, and I am proud of the agenda that we have taken up under the Republican leadership in this Congress. We are indeed doing the important work that the people sent us here to do.

So far, just a list of some of the things that we have done in the first few months of this Congress: We have taken the first step in our obligation to repeal and replace ObamaCare, a system that is absolutely failing, that is causing rising premiums. It is causing people to lose their insurance all across the Nation, a system that will collapse if we don't fix it. We, the House Republicans, have taken important steps in order to begin the repeal and replace process of ObamaCare.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have passed a bill to repeal and replace Dodd- Frank, legislation that was strangling our local community banks across the country. We have taken a step to begin to fix that and provide relief.

We have also dealt with important immigration issues and taken important action in terms of passing legislation to end human trafficking.

I am very proud, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, of the work that we have done to pass the National Defense Authorization Act to begin to rebuild our military and get the military the resources it needs so that it can defend us against a growing array of threats and a very complex array of enemies across the Nation.

We have also, Mr. Speaker, taken important steps using the congressional review action process to repeal regulations put in place over the last 8 years that have been damaging to our industry, to individuals, to small businesses all across the Nation.

We have been historically productive, and it may be that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't agree with the steps that we have taken, but it is simply not accurate to say we aren't focusing on what is important. We are focusing on those issues that matter most to the men and women across this Nation that will begin to make sure we can keep everybody safe, begin to make sure we can defend ourselves, begin the process of reforming our outdated and burdensome tax code, as well, Mr. Speaker, as ensuring we bring back the kind of economic growth we know we need and fixing our healthcare system.

These bills that we are debating today, the rule for these bills, are part of that process. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Flores, Mr. Mullin, and Mr. Young, for their hard work on this legislation.

In Wyoming, which is one of our Nation's largest energy-producing States, we know how important it is that we work to develop our domestic energy resources. We know the technology that has been available that has helped us do that, that has helped us begin to, for the first time ever, have energy independence that has really helped us begin to have the kind of economic growth we need.

We cannot depend just on that technology. We also have got to improve the permitting process, Mr. Speaker. Improving the pipeline permitting process by promoting the kind of timely review, supporting interagency coordination, and creating a new and streamlined system for safety that will help us to transport our energy exports and imports are all crucial steps in our ability to ensure affordable energy and economic growth.

The other bill that we are considering under this rule, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 218, will provide a desperately needed road, as you heard my colleague Mr. Young explain, to improve the safety and well-being of the residents of King Cove, Alaska, and save lives, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore, I urge adoption of both the rule and the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment that will help ensure the strength of our nuclear deterrent by preventing further reductions to our deployed ICBM fleet below 400 missiles.

At this point, our deployed fleet at 400 missiles is at the basic level necessary to maintain a strong and effective nuclear deterrence. Mr. Chair, our ICBMs are a critical leg of our triad as they provide our commanders with a responsive, flexible, and survivable military response ready 24/7, 365 days a year.

Our ICBM leg of the triad also adds significantly to our deterrence capability by increasing the number of targets our adversaries must hold at risk.

My amendment is a safeguard that prevents any unilateral disarmament that would leave our Nation vulnerable to attack. My amendment does not impact our compliance with the New START, and it does not change our current alert level or require the deployment of any additional ICBMs at this point.

The amendment simply reaffirms to our adversaries and our allies that our nuclear deterrence will remain strong.

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

Mr. Chair, there is nothing in my amendment that has any negative impact on our submarine fleet. In fact, I support strongly, as does the NDAA, the importance of the triad, as have administrations of both parties over many years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), a retired brigadier general and the former commander of Offutt Air Force Base.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen over the years many misguided efforts to unilaterally cut our strategic forces and to do so in a way that has been really based on a notion that somehow if we reduce the level of weapons in our inventory, that our adversaries will do the same. We know that is simply not the case.

This amendment is crucial to ensure that we maintain the kind of deterrent that is necessary in a world in which we are facing increasing threats.

Our ability to deter against the threats of our adversaries depends in large part both upon their understanding of our will to use our forces as well as their belief in our capability, and the last thing we should be doing is reducing below a safe and secure number.

Mr. Chairman, in offering this amendment, my intention is very much to say, look, our obligation as Members of the House of Representatives is to provide for the common defense and to ensure that, while we are overseeing activities by the executive branch, we are not allowing the kind of irresponsible cuts that could put us at risk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my colleague from both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Byrne, for his work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support both of these underlying bills, and I want to speak particularly about the National Defense Authorization Act.

We are, today, living in a world where we face a more complex array of threats than at any time in the last 70 years. The obligation that we have to our men and women in uniform, to make sure that we provide them with the resources that they need to defend this Nation, is a more solemn obligation than any other we have.

There are many things that we were elected to do when we came to Washington, and we have done many of those things in this Congress. We have been a historically productive Congress in the months that we have been here. We have passed repeal and replace of healthcare reform, we have passed the repeal bill for Dodd-Frank, we have begun our important work on immigration reform, and we have done tremendous work on regulatory reform to lift the burden of the massive overreach of the Obama years. But there is nothing that we do that is more important than providing the resources for our men and women in uniform. This bill is a very important first step in that direction.

I want to mention a couple of things that this bill does in particular.

In the aftermath of the ICBM test, the first successful North Korean ICBM test, one of the most important challenges we face as a nation is ensuring that we have provided for the defense of this Nation with respect to missile defense. This bill adds $2.5 billion above the administration's request for missile defense. It focuses on including additional interceptors for existing systems, as well as research for new technologies.

Total missile defense is still below the funding levels during the Bush administration. This bill is a very important first step, but, Mr. Speaker, we have got to do much more.

We also, in this bill, begin the process of providing the necessary additional resources and top line to begin to rebuild. We have not had a defense budget, Mr. Speaker, since 2011 that was based upon the Pentagon being able to assess the threats and telling us what we need to do to be able to defend against those threats.

We have now, because we are living under the Budget Control Act, had a Defense Department, instead, that has been obligated to fund at levels that are arbitrary and to cut at levels that are arbitrary. No nation can responsibly live under that system.

The next thing we have got to do is repeal the Budget Control Act. We have got to recognize that we have a huge and growing debt crisis, a huge fiscal crisis, but that crisis is not being driven by our defense budget. The Budget Control Act has been ineffective at getting at what we need to do in terms of reducing the debt. Instead, it has gutted our defense.

We are in a world today where the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese, ISIS, and al-Qaida are all continuing to make strides against us, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that I am often asked as a new Member of this body is what has surprised me most in my time in Congress. I came to this body, Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has spent a lot of time focused on national security and defense issues, as someone who spent a large part of her career really invested in and studying and learning these issues, and I thought, Mr. Speaker, that I was relatively well informed about these issues.

I have been stunned, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, briefing after briefing after briefing, at the extent to which we have fallen so far behind. And I think it is critically important for my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and for the American people to understand the extent to which our adversaries are, today, fielding and developing capabilities and systems against which we cannot, may not be able to defend.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to read something that Ronald Reagan said back in 1982 on an issue when they were having similar issues and debates and discussions about defense spending. He said: ``Now, I realize that many well-meaning people deplore the expenditure of huge sums of money for military purposes at a time of economic hardship. Similar voices were heard in the 1930s, when economic conditions were far worse than anything we're experiencing today. But the result of heeding those voices then was a disastrous military imbalance that tempted the forces of tyranny and evil and plunged the world into a ruinous war. . . . We must never repeat that experience.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to remember that weakness is provocative, that it is when we are strong that we are most able to protect ourselves and to defend ourselves, and we must learn the lessons of the past. Passing this rule and passing the underlying legislation, this National Defense Authorization Act, is the first step in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in the affirmative and to ensure that we do everything we can to defend our Nation and to make sure that we defend freedom for the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained recognizing the Military Times Sailor of the Year from Gillette, Wyoming. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 350, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 351, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 352.

Mr. Chairman, it is surprising to sit here and hear arguments that we have been hearing really for the last almost 70 years now, the notion that the reason that our adversaries build nuclear weapons is because we are building nuclear weapons, or the notion that we all are building nuclear weapons for the same purposes.

The North Koreans are building nuclear weapons in order to threaten us. They are building nuclear weapons, potentially, in order to hold us hostage. They are building nuclear weapons against which we must deter.

The notion that if we advance our capabilities, the notion that if we produce the LRSO we are going to be in a position where we are encouraging the other side is just simply a flawed understanding. We already have a situation where our adversaries are modernizing their dual capable cruise missiles. They don't think these things are destabilizing. We shouldn't argue that they are for us, as well.

In addition, the LRSO plays a hugely important deterrent role. It imposes important and real costs on any potential adversary. It forces them, in addition to modernizing their nuclear arsenals, to modernize their air defense arsenals.

It is hugely important that we proceed. It is hugely important that we modernize. I agree it is a very expensive undertaking, but I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and remember that the single most expensive thing we can do would be to fail to defend ourselves. The single most expensive thing we can do would be to encourage an adversary to attack us because they think they can overtake us or overcome our capabilities.

I think it is important that we not go down the path of unilateral disarmament and that we do everything we can to continue to modernize at a very rapid pace, to speed up the pace at which we are modernizing.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask my colleague from North Carolina, the chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, to engage in a brief colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, Wyoming has used CTE funds to pioneer innovative ways of improving the college and career readiness of our students.

Protecting CTE funding in Wyoming for cutting-edge programs like the Pathway Innovation Center in Casper is crucial, in part, because the previous administration's harmful energy policies that devastated our economy, and we must now work to address a depressed labor market and hedge against future energy market downturns.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairwoman and her committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their efforts to reform and reauthorize the CTE programs. However, I have concerns that the bill, as drafted in its current form, could negatively impact my State. Therefore, I can't support it.

Additionally, I know some Members from West Virginia and Louisiana share my concerns.

Therefore, I ask the gentlewoman, would she be willing to work with us as this process moves forward to help address these concerns so we can get a bill to the President's desk that we can all support?

I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank very much my colleague from Washington particularly for calling me ``young.'' I appreciate that always.

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the colloquy taking place among my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We see this repeatedly now day

in and day out as we work hard in the majority to continue the progress that we have made so far in this Congress, really record-breaking progress of passing legislation, putting bills on the President's desk, having those bills signed into law. Mr. Speaker, I believe we are now at the point where we have presented more bills to the President and had more bills signed than in any Congress in the first term of any Presidency since Harry Truman. It is a record we are very proud of over here.

It is clear that as we continue to put commonsense reform legislation forward that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would sometimes like to distract and talk about other things. In terms of the healthcare conversation that is going on and the talk of unintended consequences, I would just point out, Mr. Speaker, that we now know the consequences of ObamaCare. We have had to live under ObamaCare now for many years. We are in a situation where the system is absolutely failing the people of this country, and we have an obligation as a body, an obligation we take seriously here in the House, to make sure that we do what is right for the people of this country, that we provide them relief, that we provide them the kind of healthcare reform that is going to lower their costs, that is going to provide better access to care and put people back in charge.

We have tried the Democrats' way now for the last 7 years and fundamentally seen that the government cannot mandate effectively what people need. It doesn't have the consequences that many on the other side of the aisle thought it would, and the consequences have been devastating.

Mr. Speaker, the same is true in terms of the challenge that we are here dealing with today with these two bills. As my colleague from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) so eloquently put it, those of us across the West--and Mr. Polis knows this well, too--have had to live under this situation of absolutely devastating forest fires, forest fires that have been caused in too many instances by mismanagement by the Forest Service, mismanagement by the Federal Government.

These bills--and in particular, H.R. 1873, which is a bill that I am honored to cosponsor with Representative LaMalfa--will begin to impose the kind of commonsense reforms that we need so that our power grid is no longer threatened by mismanagement of our Federal Forest Service, of our Federal forestlands.

On our federally managed forest in Wyoming, when we have overgrowth around a power line, it is a direct risk to the people, the property, and the power grid, as well as to the wildlife that those on the other side of the aisle claim to care so much about.

Our local leaders understand this. Our local leaders are in the very best position to do something about this and to do it quickly. That is why we put in place these provisions in these bills that will allow the local utilities, allow local officials, to make the kinds of decisions that have to be made quickly.

H.R. 1873 will allow our utilities to submit their own management facility inspection plans, their own operation and maintenance plans, and it will also ensure that our Federal land managers have consistent and accountable policies to reduce hazards in electricity rights-of- way, including they, themselves, will be held accountable for managing the land. The bill does adjust the liability framework for these rights-of-way to ensure that the utilities and the Federal Government have the incentive to respond quickly and effectively to these hazards.

Nobody in Wyoming or in any other State ought to feel that they have to go without affordable, reliable power, ought to feel that the power grid is threatened simply because the Federal Government fails to do its job. We have simply seen that too much. Our local co-ops are willing and able to step up to the plate.

Solving this problem is crucial to those who live in Wyoming, where bark beetle-killed trees and poorly managed overgrowth of Federal forests pose true threats to the safety and health of our communities and to our power reliability. Mr. Speaker, that is why H.R. 1873 is supported by the Wyoming Rural Electric Association, the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Black Hills Energy, the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Western Governors Association, and many others who care so much about our lands out West.

Wyoming supports this bill. Wyoming utility co-ops know best how to manage the provision of electricity and how to handle these rights-of- way and also how to provide healthy and sustainable forest management as they do so.

Mr. Speaker, I request immediate passage of this bill. It is hugely important that we get back on track, that we stop the kind of mismanagement from Washington that has been so damaging for so many years, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to act quickly on its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 310.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 374 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 374, which provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2213, the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act, and makes in order one amendment.

H.R. 2213 is a commonsense, bipartisan bill, introduced by Ms. McSally from Arizona, that will help ensure we have sufficient Border Patrol agents to secure our border. At this point in

time, where we are facing tremendous challenges overseas, where we are facing tremendous national security challenges, our Customs and Border Protection is understaffed and unable to meet the congressionally mandated staffing levels for Customs officers and Border Patrol agents.

With these ever-increasing threats to our national security, it is vital that we ensure CBP can quickly hire capable and trustworthy individuals to secure our border. Currently, prospective officers and Border Patrol agents are required to undergo a background check that includes passing a polygraph test. This process has been very long and has drastically delayed the CBP's ability to hire officers and Border Patrol agents.

H.R. 2213 simply provides a limited, voluntary exemption to the pre- employment polygraph requirement for State and local law enforcement officers that are in good standing and who have already passed a State and local law enforcement polygraph test, for Federal law enforcement officers who are in good standing, and members of the armed services or veterans who have received or who are eligible to receive an honorable discharge and have held a security clearance and undergone a thorough background check in the past 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, this exemption is very narrow and only applies to men and women that we already trust to protect and defend us at home or abroad: men and women who have already been through relevant security background checks. The CBP would not be required to use this waiver authority; and, if there is anything in any applicant's history that warrants further investigation, the CBP Commissioner is fully authorized and encouraged to use a polygraph test to resolve any outstanding questions.

Mr. Speaker, for years, the CBP has struggled to recruit and vet potential employees. There is no more urgent need that we have right now than securing our border and making sure we have the resources there to be able to do that job.

H.R. 2213 is a commonsense approach that will help address this issue and ensure the CBP has the men and women it needs to keep our borders and our Nation secure. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2213, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I welcome the opportunity to share the floor today with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my good friend from the Rules Committee. I just would point out that, as a Congress, as a body, we have actually passed more pieces of legislation, gotten them on the President's desk, and gotten them signed at this point in Congress than at any time since President Truman was in office.

So it may be that my colleague is not in agreement with many of the things that we have done, but, Mr. Speaker, we have actually been working very hard to begin the process of recovery from 8 years of rules and regulations that have really strangled the people of this Nation.

We have passed, as the gentleman noted, healthcare reform out of this body. We repealed ObamaCare, and every single day we get more and more indication about the failures of that healthcare plan, with insurance companies pulling out of markets and leaving citizens all across this Nation unable to get access to affordable care. The Republican plan will change that.

We are also in the process and will, tomorrow, be voting to repeal the Dodd-Frank legislation, which has had a devastating effect on our community banks all across this country and on our communities, and moving away from the really misguided approach of the last 8 years that centralized power here in Washington, D.C.

One thing that didn't happen in the last 8 years though was the security of the border. And far too often we saw laws that weren't enforced. We saw people turning the other way for sanctuary cities, for example, and the failure on the part of the last administration to do what was necessary to make sure that we could know who is coming into this country and that we had the resources necessary to secure our border.

So I am very proud to be here today, to be able to debate this rule, to be able to debate the underlying legislation, which is sadly needed, so that we can get those resources we need.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for his participation in this debate today.

I think it is important for the record to be clear and to be accurate, Mr. Speaker. This House of Representatives, in the time that we have been in session, has been the most productive House during the first 100 days of a Presidency in 30 years.

I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not want to agree to that. They may not want to acknowledge that because Speaker Pelosi held the record previously when she was Speaker, but I am very proud of that, that we have done a tremendous amount for the American people in the time that we have been in session.

We have overturned 14 Obama regulations in this Congress alone, which has had a tremendous impact on our constituents. We have already taken steps that will save them $3.7 billion in regulatory costs, 4.2 million hours in paperwork.

Mr. Speaker, when I think about the communities across my home State of Wyoming, this relief could not have come soon enough. We are in a position today where we have faced strangling regulation out of Washington, D.C., for the last 8 years, regulation that was truly intended in too many instances to drive businesses out of business, to drive our community banks out of business, and to create a situation where Washington, D.C., was creating one-size-fits-all policies. But those days are over. This is a new day, and we take very seriously our obligations to put country ahead of party.

With respect to Russia, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague is well aware, there are multiple investigations underway in the Congress. We on the Republican side--I think this is a bipartisan issue--take very seriously the sanctity of our electoral process and will make sure that we get to the bottom of it.

We have got to ensure that we recognize and understand the extent to which Russian hacking was going on--frankly, not just in the United States, but around the world--and make sure that we do everything necessary to stand up against both Russian hacking, to stand up against the kind of Russian attacks that we are seeing on electoral processes in Europe, and, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we secure ourselves.

At the end of the day, that is what this debate is about here this afternoon. We have got to make sure that we all recognize in this body that there is nothing more important than the security of our Nation.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we are at a crisis moment. We are at a crisis because, for the last 8 years, our military has been strangled. For the last 8 years, our borders weren't secure. We have had threats growing around the world.

We have seen the rise of ISIS. We have seen the rise of al-Qaida--the expansion of al-Qaida around the world into many more countries than it ever existed before.

We have seen the Iranians make steady progress towards obtaining a nuclear weapon under what is the most misguided treaty agreement ever entered into by any American President: the Iranian nuclear agreement.

We have seen Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. We have seen Russian aggression in Europe.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen North Korea attempting, on a near weekly basis it sometimes seems, to make sure that it has perfected and acquired ballistic missile technology, while they also work to make sure that they are able to put a nuclear warhead on those ballistic missiles.

Mr. Speaker, we are living in a very dangerous world. We are living in a world in which America's ability to defend and protect itself is under threat in a way that it has not been certainly since the end of the Cold War, and maybe even since World War II.

Defending and protecting this Nation, Mr. Speaker, will require, both, that we provide the resources our military needs to defend us so that we can, Mr. Speaker, get out from underneath the policies of the last 8 years, but it also will require that we secure our border.

This bill today on the floor will provide the relief necessary for the CBP to do what is necessary to keep us safe. We have no greater responsibility than providing for our security.

I would remind the gentleman from Florida that this bill passed out of the Homeland Security Committee on a voice vote, on a bipartisan basis, with sponsors from both sides of the aisle. It is crucially important that we take this step to provide the relief--and not mandatory relief, but the relief--that the CBP can use if it needs.

Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the range of accomplishments that we have had that I am very proud of in this Congress and the accomplishments still to come, I think that we have to also recognize that nothing is more important than the security of the Nation. This bill goes to the heart of that, to making sure that the CBP can do its job. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 2213.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Wyoming State Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, which will hold its one hundred and second annual conference on May 18-21st in Casper, Wyoming. Members will attend from across Wyoming and host Daughters of the Republic President General Ann Turner Dillon as the keynote speaker. As part of the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, the Wyoming State Society is a non-profit, non-political, women's volunteer organization that is dedicated to preserving American history and promoting patriotism.

The Wyoming State Society, Daughters of the Revolution, is comprised of women who can prove lineal descent from a patriot of the American Revolution. These women invest many hours serving their local communities by supporting active duty military personnel, promoting historic preservation, working with school children, and welcoming new American citizens at naturalization ceremonies. I am grateful for Daughters of the Revolution members' commitment to preserving our national heritage.

Each chapter in the State Society has a unique connection to the local community and its history. The Fort Caspar Chapter, NSDAR, where this year's conference will be held, is named in honor of Lieutenant Caspar Collins, who sacrificed his life trying to rescue a wagon train that was headed for the local fort. The Fort Caspar Chapter has been dedicated to veteran services, genealogy, community services, and historic preservation since its founding in 1914. It is my honor to acknowledge this and the many contributions the women of the Daughters of the Revolution have made throughout history, and continue to make today.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 230.