Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1027, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 5515.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to express my appreciation to the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Smith, not only for his work on this conference, but also for his work throughout the process of bringing this bill to fruition. However strongly he and I may disagree on some particular issues, it is always clear that he seeks, first and foremost, to do the right thing for our military personnel and our country's national security, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to work with him.

Second, I want to thank all the members of the conference committee and of the House Armed Services Committee. Each of them has contributed to this final product, although I suspect none of them is pleased with everything that is or is not in it.

It is the result of a negotiation between House and Senate Members with a variety of interests. Taken as a whole, however, I think all Members who participated, whether in committee, in conference, or here on the floor, can be proud of the result.

Third, I want to thank our staff, both committee staff and personal staff. They worked long and hard to get this done and get it done earlier than we have in many years. I especially want to thank the committee staff director Jen Stewart, as well Paul Arcangeli and my personal chief of staff, Josh Martin, for all of their work.

Mr. Speaker, next, I want to express particular appreciation to a group of folks who often do not get publicly recognized in order to do this conference report and do it on the timeframe we have had available. Those working in legislative counsel have had to work extraordinarily hard, and I am grateful to each of them. Some of those in legislative counsel who have worked on this product include Hadley Ross, Sherry Chriss, Tony Sciascia, Noah Wofsy, Ken Cox, Brendan Gallagher, and Mat Eckstein. There are others who will be named shortly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Rules Committee and that staff for helping us work through a procedural issue in the last couple of days.

Mr. Speaker, this bill takes a major step forward in rebuilding our military, reforming the Pentagon, and better preparing this country to deal with the national security challenges that lay before us.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, this bill continues to make readiness a key focus, for if we send our men and women out on missions, then they deserve to have the best equipment, the best training, and the best support that this country can provide.

It advances implementation of the new National Defense Strategy, so we can be better prepared against threats from peer or near-peer adversaries, such as Russia and China. In fact, there are many, many provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, directly related to countering the aggressive actions we have seen from each of those countries.

One section of this conference report is the first update to our foreign investment laws in many years. I commend Chairman Hensarling, Chairman Royce, and, of course, Speaker Ryan for negotiating a strong CFIUS bill, which helps protect our Nation's security.

This conference report also prohibits the Federal Government from buying products or services from Chinese telecommunications companies, such as ZTE and Huawei. And, importantly, it prohibits the Federal Government from doing business with any company that buys their products or services.

A more complete summary of the provisions has been provided to all Members, but the top priority of this bill and of our committee remains the men and women who volunteer to serve our Nation in the military. This bill authorizes the largest pay increase in 9 years. It provides additional assistance for spouses seeking employment; it makes transition assistance more tailored to the individual; and it prohibits the closure of military healthcare facilities; all of that and more focused on our people, who are our most valuable asset.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of patriotic Americans serving our country, one provision on which the House receded to the Senate was the title of the bill. We happily agreed to name this legislation after Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We do so not just because of his current position but in recognition and in tribute to a lifetime of patriotic service to our Nation.

Navy pilot, prisoner of war, Member of the House, Member of the Senate, Presidential nominee, whatever his job, whatever his role, John McCain has carried it out with passion and intensity and with a love for our country that knows no bounds. History will find Senator John McCain to be one of the giants of our time.

While battling cancer at home in Arizona, he has helped guide this year's NDAA throughout the process. Now, that does not mean that he agrees with every one of the outcomes in this conference report. I know from firsthand experience that he can be a fierce advocate and a tough negotiator.

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

Mr. Speaker, Senator Inhofe has done a great job on Senator McCain's behalf, and this conference report bears Senator McCain's unmistakable stamp. He has, once again, made a strong, positive difference for the men and women in uniform and for the national security of the United States of America.

We certainly wish him and his family the best in his current fight. We thank him, and we attempt to honor him and his outstanding record of service to our Nation with this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chair of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the chair of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a distinguished subcommittee chair from the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), a leader on CFIUS reform.

Mr. Speaker, I inform the Chair that at this point I have no additional speakers other than myself to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to all of the Members who came to speak on the conference report today. Yet, I have the feeling we have only begun to scratch the surface of all of the issues that are addressed in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a big bill. It is about 1,800 pages big. About 200 pages of that is the CFIUS reform, led by the Financial Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, but there is a lot that is in this bill. The distinguished ranking member just talked a bit about reform.

This bill eliminates a number of requirements that Congress had put on the Department of Defense in previous years. It streamlines some decisionmaking. It begins to put in some sort of comprehensible order all of the laws related to acquisition. It requires that there be savings of overhead expenses of a number of DOD agencies that have

not been addressed before. I could go on and on.

There was a Secretary of Defense who wrote a book a few years ago, who complained about this bill, who said that it is too much that Congress is doing to tell us what to do.

Yet, I would remind all of us, Mr. Speaker, that the Constitution puts that exact responsibility on our shoulders. It says that it is Congress' job to raise and support, provide and maintain, and make the rules and regulations for military forces of the United States.

This is the bill by which we carry out that responsibility. It is our job to do it. And this bill is the product, as you have heard, of Members of both sides of the aisle throughout the process.

There have been, approximately, 1,005 amendments that have been proposed at some point in this process: subcommittee, full committee, floor consideration, and then on to conference. About an equal number of them were Republicans and Democrats.

We have come together, as we have for each of the past 57 years, to exercise our constitutional responsibilities on behalf of the men and women who risk their lives to protect us.

I would certainly join with the ranking member and other Members, who have said: Now, in order to get the full benefit of this, we need to have an appropriations bill that matches, on time, before the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of this debate today, you have heard a lot of thanks. It is appropriate because, obviously, it takes a lot of work, by a lot of people, to put together an 1,800-page bill and try to think through the consequences of what it means for us, what it means for our servicemembers, and what it means for our allies around the world.

It truly is a team effort, a bipartisan team effort. And I believe the reason that is so, the reason it has passed every year, and has been signed into law every year for the past 57 years, is because of the men and women, of whom we are so proud, who risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. They continue to be at the forefront of our thoughts. It is on their behalf, and for their benefit, that we bring this conference report, urge its adoption, and appreciate their service to the United States of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Sarah Jennings on her retirement after more than 19 years of exceptional service to the Congress at the Congressional Budget Office. Sarah will be retiring at the end of August. After working as a civilian nuclear test engineer for the U.S. Navy, an economic consultant, and an instructor at George Mason University, she began her congressional career in CBO's Budget Analysis Division in 1999. She worked as a principal analyst and then as the unit chief for the Defense, International Affairs, and Veterans' Affairs Cost Estimates Unit.

During her time at CBO, Sarah has been recognized as a knowledgeable and experienced manager. As the third longest tenured unit chief in the Budget Analysis Division, she has extensive knowledge of the program accounts in her unit and fosters an outstanding collegial environment where analysts respect each other and work well together.

Sarah has established an exceptional working relationship with the Armed Services Committees, which allows CBO to work on the proposals for the annual National Defense Authorization Act in an effective manner. During her tenure, she has taken a strategic and methodical approach to the analysis of legislative proposals as she assists her analysts in considering the budgetary effects of different proposals. Her support has made an important contribution to the Armed Services Committees' success in achieving the timely enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act each year. She deserves a well-earned retirement.

In short, with Sarah's retirement, the Congressional Budget Office will lose a great asset. Over the past 19 years, the Congressional Budget Office--and by extension, the Congress itself--has been fortunate to enjoy the dedication and insight that Sarah has brought to her work. I know my colleagues join me in extending our thanks and appreciation to Sarah for her service to our nation, and our very best wishes for a happy and productive retirement.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 24, 2018, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania yielding and the support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Nevada for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced this legislation with a near unanimous request of the legal community and the broader leadership in the Texas Panhandle.

Since 1980, the Federal building and courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, has been known as the J. Marvin Jones Federal Building. Judge Jones led a remarkable life. He served in this House from 1917 to 1940, including as chair of the Committee on Agriculture. He was then appointed to the court of claims, took a leave of absence to serve in the Roosevelt administration during World War II, and went back to the court of claims, where he was the chief judge there from 1947 until his retirement in 1964.

As I said, it was a remarkable life, but there is another remarkable life that has made a lasting impact on the cause of justice in the Northern District of Texas, and it has also been an inspirational life.

Judge Mary Lou Robinson has served as a judge, as Members have heard, for more than 60 years, more than 35 years of which has been as a Federal district judge in the Northern District of Texas.

She is a pioneer:

She attended and graduated law school at the University of Texas at a time when very few women applied or were admitted to the law school at all.

When she went into private practice in Amarillo, she was one of two female attorneys practicing there.

In 1955, Judge Robinson became the first woman in Amarillo history to serve as a judge higher than the justice of the peace level and was the first Potter County court at law judge. Up until that time in Texas, women could not serve on juries.

She was elected State district court judge in 1960.

As you have heard, in 1973, she became an associate justice of the Seventh State Court of Appeals, making

her the first female appellate judge in the entire State of Texas. She later became the chief justice of that court.

In 1979, Judge Robinson was nominated and confirmed to the Federal bench, again being only the second woman to serve as a U.S. district judge in Texas.

Then, day in and day out, for nearly 40 years, Judge Robinson presided over Federal and criminal cases with fairness and with high expectations fitting the American legal system. She took senior judge status in 2016.

As Members have heard, she has been honored repeatedly, such as the Sandra Day O'Connor Award for Professional Excellence from the Texas Center for Legal Ethics and the Texas Lawyer magazine's one of 100 Legal Legends in the State.

But I will say, Mr. Speaker, that Judge Mary Lou Robinson's influence extends even further than the trailblazing and remarkable longevity that her legal career would indicate.

Throughout it all, Judge Robinson has upheld the highest standards of legal ethics and professionalism, being a role model not only for those in the legal system, but for men and women throughout the region.

She is fair, but she is tough. And here I can speak from a bit of personal experience that no lawyer wanted to go unprepared into her courtroom. With her razor-sharp intellect and knowledge of the law, she was always well prepared and probably knew more about the law of the case than the lawyers arguing it. No one ever doubted that all sides of the case would get a fair hearing.

At the same time, those who know her off the bench know her to have a great sense of humor, compassion, and a warm human touch.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5772 would add Judge Mary Lou Robinson's name to the Federal building and courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, so that it would be known as the J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and Mary Lou Robinson United States Courthouse.

Marvin Jones served in all three branches of our Federal Government. Judge Robinson has served in the judicial branch of the State and Federal Government for more than 60 years. This designation honors each of them in a way that is fitting to each of them.

Adding Judge Robinson's name to that of Marvin Jones will not only honor the careers of two remarkable individuals, it will help inspire all of us to reach toward their high standards of integrity, professionalism, and service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has just laid out a number of arguments in support of a Senate provision. There are obviously Members who may think differently on his arguments, although I do not believe this is the time or the place to have that debate. That will be discussed in the course of the upcoming conference with the Senate.

At this point, I would just like to offer two thoughts. One is the provision that the gentleman talks about requires that there be a mandatory spending offset. Now, when you look for how that spending can be offset, really, the Armed Services Committee only has two ways: one is to increase TRICARE copays, pharmacy copays, and the second one is to reduce retirement benefits. So I notice that the gentleman's motion to instruct does not deal with that part of the equation.

My thought is that it is far better to look at the whole universe of issues in the course of a conference rather than to try to dictate one outcome or another that doesn't include how you pay for something.

Second point, Mr. Speaker, there are 907 House provisions and 603 Senate provisions that will be the subject of this conference. They will all have to be hashed out in one way or another, but the conferees should have the flexibility to deal with all of those 907 and 603 provisions in a way that makes the most sense for national security.

So my suggestion is that the House reject this particular motion and allow the conferees to do their work in looking at the whole universe of what is best for the men and women who serve and what is best for the country's national security.

Mr. Speaker, I would inform the gentleman that I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say that there are a number of provisions which Members on one side or the other consider inequitable, and a big part of the challenge we face is, okay, to enact a particular provision, you have to pay for it.

So my point is we need to look at the whole universe not only of what we would like to have done, but also of how it would be paid for.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, I move that meetings of the conference between the House and Senate on H.R. 5515 may be closed to the public at such times as classified national security information may be discussed, provided that any sitting Member of Congress shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me commend the manager of the bill, Mr. Marino, and the author of the legislation, Mr. Katko. Synthetic drugs are a plague on this country, and part of the reason is

that our laws have not kept up with the evolving threat. Mr. Katko's legislation helps the law catch up somewhat, and that is important for the safety of our people.

My amendment deals with a related area where the law has not caught up. Many of the purveyors of these poisons will seek to evade responsibility by printing on the label ``not intended for human consumption.'' The reason they do that is 21 U.S.C. 813 says: ``A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.''

Now, the loophole there is, ``to the extent intended for human consumption.'' So what these people do is they just print the label, ``not intended for human consumption,'' and that makes it more difficult to arrest and prosecute and to keep these drugs off of the street.

My amendment simply replaces part of that sentence with six factors, which should be considered, to see whether it is really intended for human consumption, whether it is really a situation where people know full well that kids are buying this stuff, that they are smoking it, or that they are otherwise ingesting it and dying as a result.

As I said, this is consistent with the idea that we need to have our laws catch up with what the purveyors of these poisons are doing, and this is another attempt to add to the very valuable work that Mr. Katko has begun.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

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

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the amendment that affects sentencing in any way. The amendment simply seeks to remove a get-out- of-jail-free card that these purveyors of poison have been using to try to evade responsibility.

There is nothing that says, if you meet any one of these factors, you are automatically going to jail.

What it says is you have to look deeper into these six factors to determine whether or not it really was intended for human consumption, that just putting a label that says ``I didn't intend anybody to smoke this stuff'' is not enough to evade liability.

And I would note, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Fraternal Order of Police have all supported this provision. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania noted, a similar provision sponsored by Senator Klobuchar was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee recently.

Mr. Chairman, this arises because a few years ago, a constituent of mine named Jesse in Amarillo, Texas, told his mother that it was no big deal; he was smoking synthetic marijuana.

Well, it turns out it was this potpourri stuff that had been sprayed with toxic chemicals. Unfortunately, Jesse died. And as the police went to the place where he would buy this stuff, it had prominently on the label, ``Not intended for human consumption.'' It greatly hindered their ability to get that stuff off the street.

Mr. Chair, this amendment fixes that. I urge Members to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, we voted on a similar amendment on this topic a week before last in the National Defense Authorization Act. It was defeated then, and it should be defeated now.

Mr. Chairman, I think there must be some misunderstanding. We are not talking about a new weapons system. What we are talking about is taking an existing weapon and taking some of the fissile material out so that it results in a lower yield.

As the chairman from Idaho pointed out, we have similar low-yield weapons that are air-delivered. The only difference here is a different delivery system through the submarines.

Now, by the way, submarines already have the higher yield delivery system. We are multiplying, though, with a low yield two different delivery systems to complicate adversaries' calculations.

Now, why would we want to do that? Well, it turns out the Russians have hundreds and hundreds of these lower yield weapons. And not only that, they write and speak openly about using them, even in conventional sorts of conflict.

So the point of the Nuclear Posture Review is we need the full range of nuclear capability, from higher yield to lower yield, to make it clear that our nuclear deterrent is credible at every level. Whatever they may think they can get away with they cannot get away with.

As Secretary Mattis has written to Leader McConnell on June 3, 2018, this ``warhead is meant to reinforce the credibility of our response, which strengthens deterrence by denying potential adversaries the advantages they appear to believe they could realize from nuclear first use.''

It seems to me that that should be the thing that all of us come together on in national security. It is having a credible nuclear deterrent to ensure that no adversary--Russia, North Korea, no one-- believes that they can get away with using these weapons. That is the reason this is so important.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5515.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 908, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I don't have any more speakers.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 908, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I currently have no speakers on this en bloc package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 908, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 908, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment as we approach the conclusion of this debate to again express my appreciation to the members of the Armed Services Committee, to all of the Members of the House who have contributed to this product, as well as to our staff.

Mr. Chairman, I think many Members do not realize that it requires a lot of long, hard, late work on the part of the staff to sift through the 578 amendments that were filed for the Rules Committee in order to make our floor consideration go as smoothly as it has.

I want to express again, as I have started our general debate, my appreciation to not only our committee staff, who have been doing this throughout markup and on to floor consideration, but the Rules Committee staff and the leadership staff on both sides that have facilitated this product.

It was a good bill to begin with, but with the assistance of a number of Members, it has become a better product, and it is certainly a worthy cause for Members to participate in and to show our support for the men and women who serve.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, with appreciation for the kind words, but especially for the commitment from the Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order. I have been advised that the amendment contains new direct spending. Therefore, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act, and the CutGo rule.

Therefore, I must insist on my point of order, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 5515, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the House is currently in the Committee of the Whole. Correct?

Mr. Speaker, I have been confused by the mace coming and going here.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5515.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 908, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 53 printed in House Report 115-702 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

The ACTING Chair. The Clerk will report the modification.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the distinguished chair of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 55 be removed from the en bloc package.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and understand all Members' desire to not only support jobs in their district, but to support American manufacturing. I share, of course, that goal. At the same time, I must oppose this amendment because there is simply no national security justification to mandate where DOD buys its plates and mugs.

Now, there was a view in the past that textiles, food, and certain tools were essential for the health and well-being of our military and related to their combat effectiveness. It is absolutely true that we have had troops die from exposure to tainted food, and that not having the appropriate tools has had an effect on the quality of our weaponry.

I have never heard that argument apply when it comes to plates and bowls and knives or forks and spoons that we are about to discuss with the next amendment.

Mr. Chairman, adding this mandate hurts our troops because if these suppliers of plates are the best price, then that is what DOD buys. But if it costs more to buy these plates, that money has to come from somewhere. And that money will come from bullets or fuel or other things that are essential for our troops to have. I cannot tell you how many fewer bullets the Pentagon will be able to buy because they have to pay more for their bowls and plates and mugs.

I also can't tell you how much more exactly the Pentagon will expend in ensuring compliance with this mandate, to do the studies to check the quality, to have a report if they should fall in one of the exceptions, which are all there within the law. But I know it will be some.

Some money, some added bureaucracy is too much. As a matter of fact, the underlying bill is trying to go the other way and get more resources into the hands of our warfighters to increase what we send to the tooth and reduce the tail.

I would just say one other point at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Where does this stop? Where does this end?

Last year, we had knives and forks and spoons. This year, we have got plates and mugs. Does it next go to the trays that they carry their food on? What about the plastic cups that they may drink from?

Do we just keep rolling with this and go all the way to the hand soap and toilet paper in the bathroom?

I don't know where it stops. If there is not a national security justification to put this added cost and added mandate, we should not do it to our troops. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment and other amendments that are not related to national security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time simply to say: Mr. Chairman, before we add this additional burden on our troops and what we provide to them, there ought to be a scintilla of evidence that this is a problem with the military.

Saying, well, somebody might get sick some day is not sufficient to say we are going to take more money away from your needs and put it into plates and mugs. We have got to have a sense of priority and a sense of evidence of where the real problems are.

Mr. Chairman, therefore, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

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

Mr. Chairman, I again want to express my admiration for the gentlewoman from New York and her advocacy for workers and businesses in her district. But I must oppose the amendment.

The fundamental question before the House is: Are we going to inflict higher costs on the Department of Defense with a mandate that requires where the Department buys its forks and spoons and knives and plates and mugs?

That is the question.

If any of these suppliers provide the best price, that is where DOD is going to go buy them. So these amendments, both the last one and this one, only become relevant if the costs are higher and we are making DOD buy the higher-priced items anyway.

Now, as I mentioned, there may be some justification for that when there is a vital national security concern. But when it comes to forks and plates, I don't think that exists.

So the only way these amendments matter is if it forces DOD to pay more. And when it forces DOD to pay more for plates and bowls and forks and knives, then you are taking money away from bullets and fuel and guns and ships and the things that help keep America safe.

Mr. Chairman, creating domestic jobs is not the primary mission of the Department of Defense. Our focus, the Department's focus and our focus in this bill when it comes to this Congress, is to protect the Nation and to support the men and women who risk their lives for us. We have got to give them everything they need to do their job. We should not do anything that would divert from that.

So I, again, with all admiration for the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from West Virginia, I just say, if we are going to tell DOD where they have to buy their forks and knives and plates, where does it end?

I have a manufacturer, I am sure, in my district that would love to supply the Department of Defense with something or another.

We cannot go down this road. We must let the Department buy the best value. That is what I think all Members should support.

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

Mr. Chair, the men and women of NNSA are like the military: they are going to get the job done under whatever conditions are required. But this amendment affects their work environment, their health and safety, and whether we can attract and retain top-quality people. It is the people who would suffer under this; it is not the mission. I understand people are antinuclear, but it is the people who would suffer.

As both gentlemen have said, we have a tremendous backlog. This just helps us catch up a little bit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 5515 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 908, the fourth set of amendments en bloc offered by myself pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 905 be considered to have been adopted with the modification I have placed at the desk.