Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.

As the gentleman and I have discussed, there are significant hurdles to legislating land transfers of the Department of Defense. Among the issues that must be addressed are:

What and where is the property in question?

Who is the intended recipient?

Are there multiple parties who are also interested in acquiring this property?

Are there ongoing legal proceedings related to the property?

Are there cleanup costs and liabilities associated with the property?

Have the interested parties met with the Department of Defense, and if so, with whom?

Does the Department support conveying the property, and do they have a continuing need for it?

If supported, why can't the Department dispose of the property through its surplus/excess process?

What are the proposed reuses of the property?

Are there any earmark issues--no-cost conveyances to private entities or for economic development can be subject to points of order.

Has CBO been consulted for any mandatory scoring implications?

And, if outside committees have equities, have they been consulted for approval or concerns?

I will be happy to continue working with the gentleman moving forward, but I would ask that he and any other Member looking at land transfers take these factors into account and give all relevant committees plenty of time and opportunity to vet their proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers on this set of amendments en bloc.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 21, 2018, I was unable to be in Washington and missed Roll Call votes No. 207, To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the disapproval of any course of education for purposes of the educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs unless the educational institution providing the course permits individuals to attend or participate in courses pending payment by Department, and for other purposes; No. 208, To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a five-year extension to the homeless veterans reintegration programs and to provide clarification regarding eligibility for services under such programs; and No. 209, To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the executive director of a national network of State-based prescription monitoring programs under which Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers shall query such network, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes'' on all three bills.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the House floor H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. This measure was reported favorably out of our committee by a vote of 60-1, and if signed into law, this would be the 58th consecutive year in which a National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law.

I want to begin by thanking the members of the House Armed Services Committee, because each of them has contributed to the work product that we bring before the House today. I particularly want to express my appreciation to the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for not only his cooperative approach to matters of national security, but for all of the input, all of the good humor, all of the partnership that he brings into making this truly a bipartisan bill which we bring before the House today.

I also want to thank the staff of the committee on both sides of the aisle for incredible hours, incredible work, not only in the last few weeks, but throughout this process as we have conducted our hearings, our briefings, and traveled, done all sorts of work that contributed to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to especially thank the legislative counsel. We have had hundreds of amendments considered in committee. We have had hundreds of amendments which have been drafted for floor consideration. That is a lot of work on a very few individuals who have had to make sure it was in the appropriate legislative language. I especially want to thank legislative counsel working with our staffs for getting this measure ready for floor consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the best way to summarize this bill is that it takes the next steps: the next steps to rebuilding our military, the next steps to reforming the Pentagon, the next steps towards strengthening our country's national security.

We are going to hear a lot more about the details in the moments and days to come. I just want to emphasize that no one bill can do everything that needs to be done on behalf of the men and women who serve our Nation, especially in repairing their equipment, in repairing their readiness, and in giving them the best equipment, support, and training our Nation can provide. No one bill can do all those things, but this bill takes important next steps building on what was done in the 2018 bill.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this point: We live in a volatile and dangerous world. Our country has a number of tools at its disposal--diplomacy, economics and trade, soft power and influence, a variety of tools--but, in my view, the most important tool is our military strength. I believe our military strength enhances all of those other tools so that, when our military is strong, our diplomacy is more effective. When our military is strong, our economic tools and sanctions are more effective. When our military is strong, our soft power somehow becomes more persuasive.

Just to take one example, there is a lot in the news these days, even today, about whether or not there will be some sort of a negotiated agreement with North Korea. I don't know how that will come out. What I do know is a strong military improves our negotiating position, and a strong military helps make sure we can defend this country if negotiations do not bear fruit.

What we are trying to advance in this bill, along with the appropriations bill, which will come, is to put the United States in a stronger position, hopefully, to get a negotiated result with Iran, North Korea, a variety of other situations around the world, but, above all, to defend this country and to defend our way of life, to defend the American people by way of supporting the men and women who risk their lives for us. That, bottom line, is what this bill tries to do. It is what all of these thousands of pages and hundreds of amendments are designed to do. With the bipartisan support of this House, I believe it will be successful.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chair of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just pick up on a couple of the points the ranking member made, largely in agreement with him.

We do have fiscal challenges in this country, and that is even more reason that, together, we need to continue to work to see that the taxpayers get more value for the money that is spent by the Pentagon. That is part of the reason that we have put such an effort, again, on a bipartisan basis, on defense reform, on buying things and services smarter, so that we can get more value for the taxpayer, but also, so we can make decisions faster. With the world moving so quickly around us, we have to be able to be more agile, and our reform efforts are a part of that goal.

But I do think Secretary Mattis has cut to the heart of the matter when he says, We can afford survival. Currently, defense is roughly 15 percent of the Federal budget, not much for all that it provides for the American people and for the country. Yes, the country can afford to survive.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that over the next 3 days we are going to consider many amendments. We are going to hear debate about some of them. We got a taste of that tonight with a difference, for example, on some of the policies in the nuclear posture review, and we will have to vote on some of those amendments. There will be people pro and con. Some Members, including me, may not have our position prevail on all of those amendments.

But none of that should take away from the fact that there is far more in this bill upon which we agree than upon which we disagree. I think that is a very important message for friends and allies around the world to hear, for adversaries or potential adversaries around the world to hear, and, most importantly, for the men and women who have volunteered to risk their lives, to serve our Nation, to protect our freedoms, defend our country, they need to hear that there is far more in this bill upon which there is agreement on a bipartisan basis than any of the disagreements that we may discuss and, ultimately, vote on.

The country has to be defended. I am very proud, on a bipartisan basis and a vote of 60-1, this bill has been reported favorably to the House floor, and I look forward to its consideration over the next 3 days.

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

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the following exchange of letters during consideration of H.R. 5515:

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, May 10, 2018.

Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thornberry: I am writing regarding H.R. 5515,

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

This legislation contains subject matter within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. However, in

order to expedite floor consideration of this important

legislation, the Committee waive consideration of the bill.

The Committee on the Budget takes this action only with the

understanding that the Committee's jurisdictional interests

over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or

altered. I also ask that the Committee on the Budget be

appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar

legislation moves forward so that the Committee may address

any remaining issues that fall within its jurisdiction.

The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment

to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and

requests your support if such a request is made. I would

appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this

understanding with respect to H.R. 5515 and would ask that a

copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in

the Congressional Record during House Floor consideration.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Steve Womack,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the following exchange of letters during consideration of H.R. 5515:

House of Representatives,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2018.

Hon. David P. Roe, M.D.,

Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.

5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2019. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has

valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this

important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your

decision not to request a referral in the interest of

expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by

foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Veterans'

Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this

exchange of letters will be included in the committee report

on the bill.

Sincerely,

William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,

Chairman.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the following exchange of letters during consideration of H.R. 5515:

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space and

Technology,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2018.

Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Thornberry: I am writing to you concerning the

bill H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for

fiscal Year 2019. There are certain provisions in the

legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential

referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving

consideration of the bill the Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology does not waive any future jurisdictional claim

over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall

within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the

Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference

committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.

5515 and into the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the

cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this

matter and others between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the following exchange of letters during consideration of H.R. 5515:

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2018.

Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,

Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which contains

substantial matter that falls within the Rule X legislative

jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I appreciate

the cooperation that allowed us to work out mutually

agreeable text on numerous matters prior to your markup.

Based on that cooperation and our associated

understandings, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not seek a

sequential referral or object to floor consideration of the

bill text approved at your Committee markup. This decision in

no way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional interests of

the Foreign Affairs Committee in this bill, any subsequent

amendments, or similar legislation. I request your support

for the appointment of House Foreign Affairs conferees during

any House-Senate conference on this legislation.

Finally, I respectfully request that you include this

letter and your response in your committee report on the bill

and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R.

5515 on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Edward R. Royce,

Chairman.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, there is widespread, bipartisan support for efforts to expand the number of small businesses that do business with the Department of Defense. I particularly want to thank Chairman Chabot and Ranking Member Velazquez of the Small Business Committee for their partnership in working toward that goal.

Unfortunately, I believe that a number of small businesses that may receive some initial funding to do business with the Department of Defense and develop their technologies have found that they do not continue to do business with the Department of Defense or their technologies are not taken up into a program of record so that it is a temporary, one-time infusion of cash which does not fully accomplish the goals that so many of us want to achieve.

This amendment requires the Department of Defense to set up a database of small business innovators, specifically those who receive grants through the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Small Business Technology Transfer program, so that we can track these businesses and see: Do their technologies get taken up in a program of record? Do these small businesses do further business with the Department of Defense? I think that is in doubt, but we won't know until we have this database.

That is the purpose of this amendment. I recommend its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would just say the gentleman is right. I don't mean to say that inclusion in a formal program of record is the only measure of success. I just think we need to track this to see: Do those small businesses continue to do business with the Department of Defense? Are their technologies taken up or not? That is the goal here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chair, I was interested to hear the gentleman's reasoning behind his amendment. Just to clarify for all Members, the overseas contingency account existed before the Budget Control Act existed. The reason it was created was because we live in a volatile, dynamic world, and there needed to be some accounting mechanism that would be responsive to particular kinds of conflicts so that, if we needed more people, more weapons to be successful, for example, fighting a terrorist in a particular location, you would have that flexibility. But those funds are authorized and appropriated just like every other part of the defense budget is. So the assertion that one sometimes reads that these are slush funds that can be spent as wanted by the Pentagon is, of course, absolutely not true.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that our forces are engaged in more countries

where there are conflicts going on--not that we are in all of those conflicts, but we are engaged with local militaries in more countries than we had been in the past. Part of the reason is because the terrorism problem has spread to more countries than it has in the past, and most of us think that it is better to engage terrorists over there rather than just stick our heads in the sand and wait for them to come attack us over here. So that has been part of what has happened, at least in the past 17 years, as we try to prevent terrorist attacks here at home.

I have to say thanks to our military and intelligence community and law enforcement, they have been remarkably successful.

I would just say, finally, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, 15-- one, five--15 percent of the Federal budget is spent to defend this country. The rest, 85 percent is spent on other things. When John Kennedy was President, it was 50 percent of the Federal budget that was spent defending the country. As Secretary Mattis says: I think we can afford survival.

So I understand the sentiment that we wish all of this conflict would go away and the world would just be a peaceful place. It hasn't quite happened yet, and until it does, it is important for the United States to be strong, to keep terrorists engaged overseas rather than here, and that is exactly what the overseas contingency account tries to help accomplish.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 905, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

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

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

I also urge support for en bloc No. 1.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 905, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers on this en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 905, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time. I urge adoption of this en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 905, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 55 in House Report 115-698 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time for this en bloc package. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 905, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 905, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers for this en bloc package. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Armed Forces Day in honor of the brave men and women who have served and who are serving in the United States Armed Forces during times of war and peace.

Celebrated annually on the third Saturday of May, Armed Forces Day came into existence on August 31, 1949, when Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson announced that this single day would replace the individual celebrations for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. President Harry Truman led the effort to establish a holiday for citizens to unite and to honor our military heroes for their patriotic service in support of the United States of America.

Armed Forces Day also plays an essential part in educating society and expanding public knowledge of the military and the important role they play in every community. The first official Armed Forces Day took place on May 20, 1950, and was themed ``Teamed for Defense.'' In an excerpt from the Presidential Proclamation of Feb. 27, 1950, President Truman stated:

``Armed Forces Day, Saturday, May 20, 1950, marks the first combined demonstration by America's defense team of its progress, under the National Security Act, toward the goal of readiness for any eventuality. It is the first parade of preparedness by the unified forces of our land, sea, and air defense.''

Generations of men and women have answered the call of a nation in need, and on Armed Forces Day, we are especially mindful of their service, sacrifice, and that of their families. I appreciate what communities all over the country do to honor those responsible for our freedom, and I am hopeful we will continue to honor and support our military in all its strength.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to commend the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Conaway, for his work not only in formulating this bill but in promoting and protecting the interests of rural America. I think it is a great tribute to him dealing with a number of complex issues, and I appreciate very much a job well done.

Mr. Chairman, when we go to the grocery store, we make decisions about what type of beef and what grade of beef we are going to purchase. The challenge is that the grades are different from place to place because there is not a uniform grading system across the country.

My amendment requires USDA to set up three training centers to train graders so that there can be more standardization. If you are going to buy a prime or a choice steak in one place, it should be roughly the same as a prime or choice steak in another place.

This will benefit consumers. It will benefit the beef industry, and I hope our colleagues will support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2809, the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act. I believe that this bill strikes the right balance between supporting American innovation in space while addressing the potential national security concerns related to emerging space-based remote sensing capabilities.

It is not in our interest to overregulate emerging innovative space companies and drive them overseas to be licensed. We saw this happen with the synthetic aperture radar market, which fled to Europe in the 1990's, and our domestic market for that technology is still suffering the consequences.

But we also cannot allow the physical security and operational success of our warfighters to be jeopardized by new commercial technologies. Technologies such as commercial signals intelligence and space-based radio frequency mapping may contribute to the ability of our adversaries to more accurately track our forces as they execute their missions abroad.

We need to acknowledge the risks posed by these emerging technologies and allow the Department of Defense to have a role in addressing any national security threat posed by commercial remote sensing, space- based radio frequency mapping, and commercial signals intelligence.

This bill strikes a good balance in two core principles of American free enterprise--promoting innovation and protecting our national security. As it moves through the process, it may be that additional concerns may rise or be dispelled. The full range of national security concerns must be taken into account when making certification or licensing decisions for commercial remote sensing satellites. It is important that all relevant committees, including the House Armed Services Committee, be involved at each step to ensure that the totality of American national interest is promoted.

I would like to particularly thank Chairman Lamar Smith for his vision and for his patience in working through the variety of issues related to this legislation. The Congress will miss his leadership and good nature in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1625, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018,'' which begins to rebuild our military. I do not agree with everything in the bill, but the importance of repairing our planes, ships, and training overrides other concerns.

For too long, Washington has asked our troops to do more with less, sending them into harm's way without the training and equipment they need to defend themselves and the country. We have added mission after mission while we cut their funding again and again. Those decisions have brought consequences; experts say our troops are `outranged, outgunned, and outdated,' `treading water,' and that we are `stretching the force to the limit.' Secretary Mattis is warning that `our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare.' We suffered four times as many deaths to accidents and training missions last year than we did to hostile fire. President Trump is right to insist on rebuilding our military, and this bill begins to do just that.

A healthy economy and a robust military are mutually dependent. A vibrant and innovative economy funds our national defense and ensures that our technology stays ahead of our adversaries. A strong military protects the rules-based international order that has been the foundation of our economic growth since WWII. Unfortunately for too many years now, funding essential to a robust defense and a healthy economy has remained at an impasse based on political gamesmanship in which members of both parties share blame. Our troops have become collateral damage in this dangerous game of politics, consistently being held hostage to the political issue of the moment. That is a shameful practice that has to end.

Congress' work does not end when we write a check. In the months ahead, we will ensure that the military uses these funds to begin to rebuild quickly and efficiently. We will pursue reforms to the Department of Defense that preserve and enhance our fighting edge. We will continue to take a hard look at Pentagon bureaucracy as we prioritize rebuilding strength on the front line and cutting fat in the back office.

Beyond the benefits this bill affords to our military, I also want to thank Chairman Calvert and Chairman Frelinghuysen for their work to help address another issue that has affected my constituents and has been lingering for nearly a century.

The federal government owns a small strip of land along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River between Oklahoma and Texas. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has never actively managed the small strip of federal land, and its own estimates of how much they own have varied widely over the years. As a result, private landowners along the River have been unsure whether the land that they have held titles to and have paid taxes on, in some cases for generations, will remain in their families or be claimed by the federal government.

Earlier this year, the BLM reached a settlement agreement with several landowners along the Red River that rescinds the incorrect spot surveys the BLM had conducted over the last decade. It also reaffirms that the gradient boundary survey method as mandated by the Supreme Court is the only true, legally defensible way to determine the ownership boundary in this contested area.

However, the settlement did not require that a gradient boundary survey be conducted, which leaves a level of uncertainty that can cloud the titles and threaten the value of privately owned land along the river. It also leaves open the possibility that a future administration may again misinterpret the Supreme Court's mandated survey methodology. An accurate gradient boundary survey along the entire 116-mile stretch of the Red River is the best, legally defensible way to move this issue forward to help settle it once and for all--something this bill helps to achieve.

With the passage of H.R. 428, the ``Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act,'' earlier this Congress, this body has affirmed its will for the BLM to work with the states of Oklahoma and Texas and consult the affected Indian tribes to help choose and direct surveyors that are licensed and qualified to conduct official gradient boundary surveys. With the gradient boundary survey method being unique to this area, having the states conduct the survey is an idea that first came from the BLM itself. Doing so will help ensure that all parties involved will receive a fair and accurate survey.

I look forward to continuing working with Senator Cornyn and the BLM to ensure that this century-old issue can finally be put to rest. Private property rights are a foundational cornerstone of our economy and of our way of life, and it is important that we push to protect them in every way that we can.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I appreciate her strong, persistent leadership on behalf of our troops and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, in the days leading up to the most recent government shutdown, we heard a number of Members of both bodies, on the floor and in the press, say that they were opposed to that continuing resolution because of the damage that continuing resolutions do to the military. It is absolutely true that continuing resolutions do erode our fighting capability.

This is the chance--the bill that the gentlewoman from Texas has brought--this is the chance to do it right. This is the chance to fully fund the military for the rest of the fiscal year and get them out of the CR mess. So all of those Members who came here to the well and have talked to the press and in the other body, who expressed concern about the damage that a CR does, this is the chance to fix that problem by voting for the bill that is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, it is another opportunity to remove our troops from the partisan political morass that has seemed to bind them. We just heard in the previous speech everything from healthcare, taxes, funding for housing, the full panoply of issues. Some Members have used all of their desire to get an outcome they want on those other issues as an excuse for not funding our military.

More recently, we have heard Members who say: Yes, I know the military needs to be funded, they need more money, but I can't support it until we have the outcome I want on an immigration issue.

So from taxes and healthcare and immigration, it is all an excuse to not fund the military, to keep them hostage, until those other issues are resolved the way that Members want them to be.

Mr. Speaker, I just think that is wrong. We need to set our military free of all of the other issues. I may well agree on finding a reasonable solution to the DACA issue. I may well agree on more funding for a number of domestic spending programs. But none of them, however important they may be, should be an excuse for failing to support the military so that when they go out and perform the missions our country asks them to perform, they are fully trained, fully supported, and equipped with the best that this country can offer.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for all of us, whatever committee we serve on, to remember that the men and women who are out there risking their lives for us, do so unconditionally, whether it is in the mountains of Afghanistan, near the DMZ of Korea, whether they are doing exercises in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, they perform their service unconditionally. Our support for them should be unconditional, too.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which will help give the House the flexibility it needs to respond appropriately to whatever the Senate may be able to pass.

I think it is important to remind everyone that the House has done its work. We passed every one of the appropriations bills before the fiscal year began in October. And, on Thursday, we passed a bill to continue government funding until February 16. Now we are waiting to see what the Senate may be able to pass, and this rule enables us to respond to that.

But I want to focus my comments on the effects that this budget drama is having on the United States military.

Mr. Speaker, the first job of the Federal Government is to defend the country. We have to do that before we do

anything else. There are more than 2 million men and women who have volunteered to risk their lives to help keep us safe. Some of them are stationed, this very minute, all around the world. Every single one of them and their families depend upon us for the support they need to do the job that the country has asked them to do.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is very explicit, saying it is Congress' responsibility to raise and support, provide and maintain, the military forces of this Nation.

But at this moment, those men and women, wherever they are around the world, doing their job, are not getting paid. They will still do their job, but now they have an additional concern to worry them.

There are other consequences.

All of the civilians who work at the Department of Defense are also not getting paid. On Monday, about half of them will be told not to come to work. The work on weapons maintenance activities, largely, will be stopped. New contracts for support and other activities will not be allowed to proceed. Many medical procedures at military treatment facilities will not take place. And the Pentagon will not be able to pay any of its bills, whether that is money that is owed to a family who has lost a loved one in the line of duty, or whether it is paying a doctor to take care of a servicemember.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true that every day that we force the military to live under a continuing resolution, it does damage to the military. The damage that is being done now under this shutdown is far worse.

Truthfully, we have not fulfilled our responsibility to the troops or to the Constitution for some time. As the world grew more dangerous over the last 8 years, we cut the military budget about 20 percent. No other portion of the Federal budget--no other significant portion, at least, of the Federal budget has undergone those kinds of cuts, and now we do this.

Mr. Speaker, there is an even more disturbing problem here. Too many people want to use our constitutional duty to the troops as leverage for some other issue.

Mostly everyone on both sides of the Capitol agree that we need to spend more on defense, and that is reflected in the votes we have had on defense issues over the past year, but some have now made actually spending that money that the troops need conditional on getting their way on some other extraneous, unrelated issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we ought to support the military funding on its own merits and not tie it to any other issue, and then we can look at those other issues on their own merits, too.

Using support for our military as a hostage to try to get political advantage on some other issue--really on any other issue--is wrong and it ought to stop.

We need to set our troops free from this political drama. The time to do that is now.

Mr. Speaker, I have consistently said, and I continue to say, that every day under a continuing resolution does damage to the United States military. There is no question about it. I also have said today that a government shutdown does more damage to the United States military.

I want to just make one other point. I think we can have debates about the proper level and the proper way to fund the military, but what is completely unacceptable is to hold the United States military hostage for some other political agenda that has nothing to do with them, and that is what has been going on.

Mr. Speaker, this House passed a defense appropriations bill for the full year back before October 1. That needs to pass now. Get the military out of this political drama and set them free.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2810) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 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. 2810.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, for 55 straight years under both parties, Congress has come together to pass a defense authorization bill to support our troops and our country's security. Along with my partner on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Smith, I am pleased to bring a conference report that will do so again.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge and thank all the Members on both sides of the aisle who contributed to this product, and especially the members and staff of the House Armed Services Committee.

I also want to thank the conferees from the 14 other committees of the House who were appointed to the conference, and I appreciate their contributions.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to work with Mr. Smith and with our colleagues in the Senate, Senator McCain and Senator Reed.

We do not always agree among the four of us; in fact, we disagree sometimes energetically, but I have no doubt that each of them is committed to doing the right thing for our troops and the right thing for our country. Each of them is a patriot whom I admire.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for all Members when we wish Senator McCain the best in dealing with his current health challenges.

Members and the public were given a summary of this conference report last week, so I will simply say that I believe the priorities in this bill are, number one, our people; number two, the readiness; number three, missile defense; and number four, reform to see that we are more capable of meeting the security challenges our country faces in the future and today.

In that regard, I especially want to commend the work of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Cooper and the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on space. They initiated deep, far-reaching reforms based on a real sense of urgency, and they are in this bill. Their work exemplifies the work of our committee: bipartisan, really nonpartisan, on the national security challenges the U.S. faces today.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, as the world grew more dangerous, we cut our defense budget and we added to the burden borne by the men and women who serve us.

We will not rebuild and fix our problems in 1 year or one bill, even when it is matched by an appropriations bill, which this will need to be, but we can head in the right direction. That is what this conference report does, and I hope Members will support it.

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

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

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

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 chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), who is a very valued member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly), who is another valuable member of our committee.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee for her work on this issue.

From my visit to Guam last year, I have seen the tremendous military buildup and military value of Guam, and I understand that more is needed as Guam remains a strategic fixture in ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Guam if she would continue to yield to me.

I agree with the gentlewoman's understanding of the provision.

Further, I support efforts to ensure that Guam has the workforce needed to maintain its strategic posture and military presence necessary to the national security of the United States. I look forward to continuing to work with the gentlewoman from Guam toward that end.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), who is a valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), who is a valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), who is another valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), who is a strong proponent of a strong national defense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who is a valuable member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, again, want to thank all the Members who have participated in this debate, and even more importantly, all the Members who have contributed to this product, especially the members of the Armed Services Committee. Truthfully, Members from both sides of the aisle throughout the House have contributed to it.

We have spent several moments here talking about a lot of the details that are in this bill. Mr. Speaker, it is a rather large bill. It covers everything from how much we pay our troops to how many ships and tanks and planes and bullets we buy, as well as what we research and various policies of the Department of Defense. So there is a lot in here.

Let me take a moment just to step back and remind everybody what this is all about. Our Constitution says one of the reasons we have a Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. As a matter of fact, I think that is the first job of the Federal Government: to defend the country, to defend our lives, and to defend our freedoms.

As a matter of fact, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says specifically it is this Congress' responsibility to build and support, provide and maintain the military forces of the United States of America. That is our job.

By passing this bill, that is how we fulfill that job. But as we have talked about, what has happened in recent years is the world has grown more dangerous. Yet we have cut the defense budget.

As a matter of fact, we are spending 18 percent less now on defense than was spent in 2010, if you measure it in real terms, apples to apples. I cannot think of another significant Federal program that has been cut nearly 20 percent over the last 7 years, yet that is what has happened in defense.

What has happened as a result of that?

Our troops have borne the burden. We are 2,000 pilots short in the Air Force today. Sixty percent of the F-18s in the Navy and Marine Corps cannot fly today.

As Mr. Wilson said, we have just seen tragic accidents in the Pacific, where 17 soldiers have lost their lives. We have had other accidents where others have lost their lives and other accidents where they have not.

The point I am trying to make is that part of the responsibility for all of that happening rests here with the Congress of the United States not fulfilling adequately, in my view, its job under the Constitution.

I would say one more thing, Mr. Speaker. I agree with virtually all of what the ranking member said about the importance of having a strategy and then resourcing that strategy. It is true.

We have not had--and there is some responsibility with administrations of both parties--a coherent strategy that holds together and resources that flow from that. We should.

The fundamental issue is that it is morally wrong to send men and women out on missions with our military for which they are not fully supported, fully trained, and equipped with the best equipment our country can provide. It is wrong for us to do it, and that is exactly what has been happening.

As I mentioned at the beginning, we are not going to turn this around in a single bill or a single year, but we can make a start. This bill makes a start.

I will absolutely agree with the gentleman from Washington and others that we can't really start to turn this around without an appropriations bill that follows it, that matches it, and that really does repair our ships and planes, increases our end-strength, and provides the training that I believe we deserve to give to the men and women who serve.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just remind everyone that there are really two reasons we do this bill. One is that we owe it to the people who risk their lives to defend us. Secondly, for the national security of the United States.

The challenges to our Nation's security have grown more ominous in recent years, certainly more complex than at any time in our lifetimes. This is, I believe, a real opportunity on a bipartisan basis to show the troops that we support them and to show adversaries and allies alike that the United States is going to stand up and defend ourselves by passing this piece of legislation and by following it up with a budget agreement and an appropriations bill that follows.

That is what I think the Constitution requires of us. I hope my colleagues will agree and support this conference report.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 6, 2017, I was unable to be in Washington and missed Roll Call votes No. 607, To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish assistance for adaptations of residences of veterans in rehabilitation programs under chapter 31 of such title, and for other purposes; and No. 608, To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report regarding the organizational structure of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes on both bills.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 31, I was unable to be in Washington and missed Roll Call vote No. 591, To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to include South Carolina as a part of the Virginia/Carolina peanut producing region for purposes of appointment to the Peanut Standards Board. Had I been present, I would have voted yes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2810) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 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, I rise against the motion to instruct. I believe this is the first motion to instruct that the House has voted on so far this year and this Congress, so not all Members may not realize that, as the House and the Senate are about to go to conference committee to work out differences in the House and Senate versions of whatever bill they are focused on, procedurally it is possible to have a motion to instruct conferees, such as the gentleman from Rhode Island has offered.

That motion is not binding on the conferees, but it is an attempt to have a vote on an issue that a Member or group of Members think is important or that they can make a point upon.

The subject of this motion to instruct is the disposal of excess weapons, as the gentleman from Rhode Island mentioned.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, I know of no evidence that--as the government has over the years disposed of these weapons, there is no evidence that any of them have been improperly used. They must be disposed of fully consistent with the law, and that includes background checks and the rest, and the proceeds support safety programs, which I would suspect that all of us think is a worthwhile endeavor.

I would also say, Mr. Speaker, the House has regularly expressed its opinion and its will with amendment votes both on the floor and in committee over the years. We have voted on this program a number of times and it has consistently been the will of the House that this program should continue. As a matter of fact, in this year's bill, we had a vote in committee and the amendment to provide for this program was adopted.

So, to me, Mr. Speaker, the most important point to make is this: the bill before us is one that helps this Congress fulfill the first responsibilities of the Federal Government, and that is to defend our citizens.

It also provides the support that the men and women who serve our Nation in the military must have if they are to carry out the missions to which they are assigned.

That is the purpose of this bill, that is the focus of this bill: to defend the country and to support our troops. That will continue to be the focus as the House and Senate move into conference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers other than myself, 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 balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Rhode Island. As he said, we make every effort to ensure that the support for the men and women who serve in the military is on a bipartisan basis. The gentleman from Rhode Island is a key leader on a number of those issues, whether it is cyber, directed energy, and a host of others.

I appreciate all of the Members on both sides of the aisle who have spoken. That bipartisan support is what helped lead us to pass the House version of this bill by the biggest majority in 8 years. That does not mean we agree on everything, obviously, but when it comes to supporting the military, their interests are first, and I think we need to keep it that way.

The subject of this motion to instruct is a long-running program designed to support safety programs. While we have had votes on this on the floor and in committee over the years, it has never been a particularly controversial program, even though the gentleman from Rhode Island has consistently been against it from the start. But the point is that in both the House and the Senate bills this year, there are provisions dealing with these programs. We come to some resolution every year, and for 55 straight years the conference report has gotten signed into law.

I would like to correct one point, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that the Army is opposed to this program. As a matter of fact, both Mr. Rogers and I have talked to the Army about this, and they have not expressed in any sense that they are opposed to it. They were waiting to see what direction they are given, and they are happy to go implement that.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, our country has been buffeted by a number of tragedies: hurricanes; of course, wildfires going on now in the West. And the horrible, horrific murders in Las Vegas are much on our minds, as are the victims and the whole communities.

It is important to take time and to learn what that investigation yields so that we can, hopefully, prevent it from happening in the future.

I just want to point out that there is nothing, whether these provisions stay or go, that is going to have any effect on an event like we just saw in Las Vegas. As a matter of fact, in the history of this program, I know of no single instance where one of these weapons that has been disposed of for gun safety programs has been used improperly. As a matter of fact, most of these weapons go up on a mantle somewhere. They are collectors items. So it would be inappropriate, in my opinion, to try to tie that horrible tragedy in Las Vegas, or others, to these particular programs.

That leads me to the last point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, and it is similar to the first. On a bipartisan basis, this House and, indeed, this Congress, come together to support the men and women who risk their lives to defend us. The world is getting more dangerous, and, unfortunately--the fault of both parties in both the executive and legislative branches of government--we cut our military too much. We are seeing the effects of that through declining readiness, through increasing accidents, and a whole variety of things where the fruits of that neglect is becoming more apparent.

But I think it is crucial, as we begin to rebuild and repair our military, that we not let other agendas, other issues, impair our ability to do so. I am concerned, for example, that some Republicans say: Oh, yeah, I will increase funding for defense, as long as you can cut that money in other parts of the budget.

I am concerned when Democrats say: Oh, I am for increasing defense, as long as you increase other parts of the budget.

I am concerned when anybody brings any other agenda, any other issue, that impedes our ability to support the men and women who serve our Nation. We ought to do our best to support them on the basis of those issues alone and let other debates, whatever they may be, stand on their own as well.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, motions to instruct are, of course, nonbinding. I think, in this case, the better vote is to vote ``no.'' There are provisions dealing with this in both the House and the Senate bill. I hope that we can come to a reasonable conclusion on these provisions and the whole bill. But the goal is to defend the country and to support the men and women who serve. We can never be distracted from that goal.

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