Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, I move that meetings of the conference between the House and the Senate on H.R. 2810 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. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, I was unable to be in Washington and missed Roll Call votes No. 558, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4514 Williamson Trail in Liberty, Pennsylvania, as the Staff Sergeant Ryan Scott Ostrom Post Office, and No. 559, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 25 New Chardon Street Lobby in Boston, Massachusetts, as the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Post Office. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes on both bills.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and thank Mr. Robert Newlen, Deputy Librarian of Congress, for more than 40 years of dedicated service to the Library of Congress. Prior to his current position, Mr. Newlen served in a wide variety of leadership roles within the Congressional Research Service and the Law Library, as well as Chief of Staff.

Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Newlen received various awards and recognitions. I know, however, what he has valued the most is the opportunity to serve and to promote the value of knowledge with Members of Congress, staff, and countless others.

The Library of Congress is a great gift to this country and to all who benefit from this treasury of learning. Robert has devoted his career to building up this institution in every way possible. And, at a time when truth sometimes seems elusive, he and his colleagues strive to make accurate information the foundation of what we do.

Mr. Newlen will leave this week to pursue other opportunities, but I have no doubt that his spirit of service will go with him. On behalf of all of us who have benefitted directly or indirectly from his work, I offer my sincere gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I support providing immediate emergency assistance for those affected by recent natural disasters and was glad to vote for such a bill earlier this week. I believe that raising the debt limit for only three months is a mistake because it does not provide the certainty that financial markets and our economy need.

But most concerning to me, and the reason I am voting against this bill, is that it forces our military to operate under a stopgap continuing resolution--once again.

Continuing resolutions do enormous, lasting damage to the American military. We are witnessing an alarming increase in accidents, growing evidence of a force under stress, and an eroding technological position when compared with our adversaries. Not only does this bill fail to remedy those problems, it makes them worse.

This bill, like other CRs, allows no new starts--the Pentagon must spend the same money on the same things as last year. But the world is not standing still. In fact, the threats from North Korea and others grow every day. Yet, this CR prevents us from responding.

The Constitution places on Congress the responsibility to ``raise and support'', ``provide and maintain'' the military forces of the United States. It is morally wrong for our nation to send brave men and women out on mission--even routine training or operations--without the very best equipment, the very best training, the very best support our country can provide. The dysfunction in the budget process has meant that we have not provided them with the best and that we have not been meeting our responsibilities. This bill is more of the same.

There is plenty of blame to go around between both parties and both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. But this negligence must stop. We must fulfill our duty. We must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the following exchange of letters be included in the Record on H.R. 2810:

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, June 29, 2017.

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

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

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

bill H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2016. There are certain provisions in the

legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the

Committee on House Administration.

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 House

Administration 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.

2810 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,

Gregg Harper,

Chairman, Committee on House

Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the following exchange of letters be included in the Record on H.R. 2810:

House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the

Workforce,

Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.

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

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to H.R. 2810, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Thank you for

consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce

with regard to H.R. 2810 on those matters within the

Committee's jurisdiction.

In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of

H.R. 2810, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will

forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so

only with the understanding this procedural route will not be

construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional interest

and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my

committee in the future.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the

Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in

a conference with the Senate. I also request you include our

exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on

H.R. 2810 and in the Congressional Record during

consideration of this bill on the House Floor. Thank you for

your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Virginia Foxx,

Chairwoman.

Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be included in the Record on H.R. 2810:

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, June 30, 2017.

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

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 2810, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. This legislation

contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the

Committee on the Judiciary. However, in order to expedite

floor consideration of this important legislation, the

committee waives consideration of the bill.

The Judiciary Committee 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.

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. Finally, I

would appreciate your including this letter in your committee

report on this bill and in the Congressional Record during

consideration of H.R. 2810 on the House Floor. Thank you for

your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I have supported it in the past. And as Mr. Emmer just mentioned, the House has supported it in the past in each of the last 2 years.

I admire the persistence of the gentleman from Massachusetts in pursuing this issue. I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to convince our colleagues across the Capitol or the Pentagon to do this. I know of no opposition to the amendment.

I think the House should continue to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, neither do I have other speakers on this en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the gentleman from Washington when he expresses his appreciation to the members of our committee. Each one of the 62 members of our committee has contributed to the bill that is here before us today and, as the Chair knows, we have had more amendments considered over the last 3 days than ever before for a National Defense Authorization bill. So Members of the whole body have contributed in many ways.

I also agree with the gentleman that our staff on both sides of the aisle, led by Jenness Simler and Paul Arcangeli, have done a terrific job in helping to manage this process and to shape and guide what has been historic levels of interest by Members on particular provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I think that you would find among our committee virtually, if not unanimous, agreement on two points. One is we live in an increasingly dangerous world. The second one is we have done deep damage to our military because of the budgets cuts, the continuing resolutions, the erratic nature of funding over the last few years.

Certainly, the members of our committee who go out and actually talk to the people who serve have heard, seen, witnessed firsthand airplanes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, training that has not gone on, movers--we are trying to save money for the military, so we are hiring cut-rate movers, and members of the military are experiencing incredible damage to their household goods as they are shuffled about from place to place involuntarily. Sometimes there are movers with criminal records who can't actually get on the military base they are supposed to be delivering to. I mean, just example after example of how these cuts have affected the men and women who serve.

And as Secretary Mattis says, the only reason we are doing so well around the world is because they have sucked it up and borne the burden. Deep damage that this bill starts to reverse.

I appreciate all the Members who support fixing our planes, getting the training, having ships that sail, better missile defense, all the things that are in this bill.

I am not going to engage in a detailed discussion about the budget. The gentleman and I discuss this frequently.

I would just say, Mr. Chairman, I believe the first obligation of the Federal Government is to defend the country. Article I, section 8 says that Congress has the power and the responsibility to raise and support armies, provide and maintain navies, provide the rules and regulations for the military forces of the United States. That is our job, and I think that is our first job.

So I agree that some of the cuts that have been proposed in other domestic programs, discretionary programs, are inappropriate, and we ought to evaluate each of them on their merits. And that continues to be my point when it comes to defense.

We evaluate our obligations to the country and to the men and women who serve, based on the merits of this argument. We don't tie it to other domestic programs. We do not say we are only going to increase defense to fix our planes if we can increase the EPA an equal amount. We don't tie it to other things.

The obligations to the men and women who risk their lives stand on their own, and that, at least in my view, is our first obligation.

Now, when we start talking about budgets, we get into all sorts of conversations about how mandatory spending is really where more than two-thirds of the budget is; how that is what has been growing; how defense is down to about 16 percent of the budget, and as it has been shrinking, the deficit has been going up. Obviously, defense is not the cause when it comes to deficits.

We can also, when we talk about tax, start talking about economic growth and this lackluster growth that the economy has suffered, at least over the last 8 years, and the need to get things going to help with the deficit.

Lots of issues to discuss, but the issue before us today is how we fulfill our responsibilities to the men and women who serve and to the country that is relying on us to protect them from missiles, to help protect them from terrorist attacks, to support the men and women who are actually performing those missions.

I think this bill advances that cause. A number of Members on both sides of the aisle have contributed to it. I think and hope it deserves the support of most all Members of the House, and I urge support for this en bloc package.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect and admiration for the gentlewoman from New York and her efforts to represent her district, her people, and try to make life better. It kind of relates to some of the conversations Mr. Smith and I were just having about tax policy, about industrial policy, about regulations, about how we have, in this country, become less competitive internationally than we should.

However, I must oppose this amendment because the bottom line is that it is not a matter of national security where the DOD buys its knives, forks, and spoons.

If Members needed further evidence of the wide range of issues which we deal with in the National Defense Authorization Act, this bill is a key example.

I think the gentlewoman accurately described the history. The Berry amendment was passed in 1940 to make sure that food and textiles were procured from the United States to support our military efforts.

In the 1970s, they put in a specialty metals provision, and attached to that was a comma that said ``including flatware.'' So then it turned out there wasn't anybody here at home that made flatware because of these international competitive issues, and DOD came to us more than a decade ago and said, ``Would you please get rid of that portion of the Berry amendment?'' and we did.

Now the question is: Are we going to start adding back specific sorts of items which DOD may buy and say you can only buy it from one place, whether or not it is critical to our country's national security?

Now, the gentlewoman mentioned that GSA is buying some spoons and knives and so forth from this manufacturer, and that is great. If we do, I hope that happens, and I hope more jobs come to her district. But to put into Federal law that the only place the Department of Defense can buy its knives and forks and spoons is from this one company, I think, starts to get us into micromanagement of industries and takes us away from the focus of this bill, which should be the troops, what is the best thing for them.

So with all my admiration for the gentlewoman, I oppose this amendment. We cannot go down the road of adding category after category after category of items to help our districts at the expense of our troops and the best use of dollars when it is not a matter of vital national security. I just don't think that the knives and forks we use qualify as vital national security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is a procedural motion that, in my view, should be rejected.

We could spend all day and night arguing provisions that prohibit what is not in the bill. There is nothing in this bill that authorizes a border wall. The focus of the bill is the men and women who serve our Nation in the military and the national security of the United States. And that is what I want to take a moment to talk about.

I would suggest that all of us think back just to the events of the last 10 days. On July 4, North Korea launched what most observers believe is an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching parts of the United States. And we know they already have nuclear weapons.

On July 9, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi went into Mosul to celebrate the ousting of ISIS with U.S. advisers, U.S. airpower, and U.S. intelligence.

Also, this week, the Chinese navy conducted drills in the Mediterranean on their way to conduct joint exercises with the Russians in the Balkans.

This is just a taste of the world we live in, and there are provisions in this bill that address every one of these incidents, from more missile defense to getting more ships in the water faster and cheaper, to supporting our efforts against ISIS, al-Qaida, and terrorist groups.

But there is another event this week that I hope we all keep in mind. On Monday, July 10, a KC-130 crashed on its way across the country, resulting in the death of 15 marines and one sailor. We do not know what caused this crash, but the early evidence indicates that there was a catastrophic failure when it was cruising at altitude.

It will be fully investigated. But in the meantime, I think we always have to remember that, even on routine training missions, even on routine deployments, the men and women who serve are risking their lives for us. We owe them the best equipment, in the best shape, with the best training that our Nation can provide. Unfortunately, that is not what they have been getting.

This year, our committee has heard testimony that, under the budget caps, the Army is outranged, outgunned, and outdated. More than half the Navy aircraft cannot fly. More than half the planes in the Air Force qualify for an antique license in the State of Virginia. More than half the planes the Navy has can't fly. Unfortunately, accident rates are going up.

Sometimes I have heard the argument that: Well, we are not going to give them any more money until they can pass an audit or they can do this and that or the other thing.

But as everybody rushes out to get on their airplanes, just think about this: What if the board of directors of your airline decided that they are not going to spend any more money repairing planes until there is a bookkeeping problem solved in headquarters?

Yet that is exactly what we have been doing to our military. We have not been giving them the planes and other equipment in good repair.

Every year for 55 straight years, Congresses and Presidents of both parties have passed into law a National Defense Authorization Act. There is a lot of credit to go around, including the Members on both sides of this aisle who have contributed to this product. I am very grateful for what they have done. But what I am really grateful for are the men and women who serve and inspire us, the men and women who are counting on us.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say, whatever our differences on other issues, which we will have time to debate in another time and place, whatever our differences about what is in or not in this bill, we need to put those differences aside and continue to support the men and women who serve and defend us. Let's not let them down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 2810, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, and that the instruction in amendment No. 35 printed in House Report 115-217 be changed from page 125 to page 121, and that the instruction in amendment No. 1 printed in part B of House Report 115-212 be changed from page 569, line 12, to page 569, line 14.

Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be included in the Record on H.R. 2810:

House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence,

Washington, DC, July 3, 2017.

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

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write to you concerning H.R.

2810, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2018, which contains provisions within the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence (``the Committee''). The Committee recognizes

the need for proceeding expeditiously to Floor consideration

of this important bill. Therefore, I do not intend to request

a sequential referral.

This waiver is conditional on our mutual understanding that

my decision to forego Committee consideration of this

legislation does not diminish or otherwise affect any future

claim over the matters in the bill which fall within the

Committee's jurisdiction, and that a copy of this letter and

your response acknowledging the Committee's jurisdictional

interest will be included in the committee report

accompanying H.R. 2810 and submitted into the Congressional

Record during consideration of this bill on the House Floor.

I also intend to seek the appointment of Committee Members

to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and

request your support if such a request is made. Thank you for

the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding

this and other matters between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Devin Nunes,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts. He is exactly right, the Department of Defense Medical Research Program is already spending money on tick-borne diseases. I believe it is about $5 million this year. It was about $5 million last year. And as I understand the gentleman's amendment, he would expand the number of diseases that they can research.

I rise to claim the time in opposition, however, to express concern about the direction of this program.

Mr. Chairman, I have a chart that indicates the tremendous growth of dollars going into this congressionally directed medical research program. It has increased tremendously in recent years, and I would like to take just a few moments to read some of the diseases that it is researching: ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, autism, bone marrow failure, breast cancer, leukemia, muscular dystrophy, epilepsies, food allergies, lung cancer, multiple sclerosis. There is a couple here that I can't pronounce, so I won't read. Osteoporosis, ovarian cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, Peer-Reviewed Orthopaedic, prostate cancer, spinal cord injuries, of course, tick-borne disease, tubular sclerosis, and the list goes on.

And let me just say I certainly support Chairman Tom Cole's attempts to increase funding for NIH and other sorts of medical research through the NIH. What I am concerned about is that, increasingly, DOD dollars are being spent to research diseases that have a tangential, at best, connection with the Department of Defense and our military. And what happens is it is taking dollars away from the sorts of injuries and diseases that our military does confront. This is a trend that is getting worse each year.

So I don't necessarily oppose the gentleman's amendment. As he points out, there is research going on here, but it is a trend I do think we have to be cautious about.

And for that reason, I want to at least raise a warning flag about the trend to add to the amount of money and the number of diseases which we are looking to the Department of Defense to help research diseases which are not related, necessarily, to key functions of the Department of Defense.

So I appreciate the gentleman letting me express that concern, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma and his consistent and strong leadership on this issue. I, like him, believe that it is time to have a new AUMF, given the change of circumstances and the evolution of the threats which we face. This is the third administration that has had to take the 2001 AUMF and stretch its meaning to encompass all sorts of groups in all sorts of countries in all sorts of circumstances.

I think, from a legal standpoint, we need to update the AUMF so that we are consistent with the intent of the Constitution. The even more important point is the point that the gentleman from Oklahoma made, and that is that the men and women who are out there risking their lives deserve to know that they have the full backing of the country that comes from an AUMF that Congress has passed.

I do want to take exception with one point that is sometimes made. This House has voted twice to update the 2001 AUMF. It voted in 2011 and in 2012 to update that AUMF to include associated forces. It happened to be part of the NDAA, even though the Armed Services Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction. The Foreign Affairs Committee worked with us, and we passed it twice in the House. It did not survive contact with the Senate, and although there was some detention language that came from it, but there had been efforts in this House to update this language.

But I think the gentleman's approach is exactly right as for the strategy, the budget that goes with it, and the legal framework we are to follow, including the AUMF. So I do think it is a methodical, deliberate process that will take us closer to doing what we ought to do, and that does include updating this Authorization for Use of Military Force against terrorist groups as that terrorist threat evolves.

I commend the gentleman for his amendment and I support it.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), a combat veteran.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I offer additional amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, this en bloc package consists of a variety of amendments from Members from both sides of the aisle. I believe that they deserve the support of the House. I recommend adoption of the en bloc package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, 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 all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2810.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 2810, pursuant to House Resolution 431, amendment No. 88 printed in part B of House Report 115-212 may be considered out of sequence.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring before the House H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. It was reported favorably by the House Armed Services Committee at 11:59 p.m. on June 28, 2017, by a vote of 60-1. Now, that vote is an indication of the bipartisan support that exists to support our troops and to fulfill our obligations placed on us by the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is always helpful for us to remind ourselves of the authority by which we undertake our responsibilities. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power and the responsibility ``to raise and support Armies. . . . To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces,'' and, of course, ``To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.''

The members of our committee and our staff take those responsibilities very seriously. This year, we seek to carry them out in a world which is as dangerous and complex as any of us have ever seen. One example from the news of the day is the alarming progress North Korea is making towards having an intercontinental ballistic missile that can carry nuclear weapons to our homeland.

Now, we have, of course, a number of tools to use, including diplomacy and sanctions, but there is no substitute for military power, and I believe we must develop and deploy more of it to be ready to deal with these growing threats.

So the bill before us today substantially increases money for missile defense so we are more capable of protecting our homeland against those ballistic missiles. It also increases funding for key munitions and for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance so we can have better visibility on what adversary is doing.

It increases the end strength for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, just as they requested. And it funds more joint exercises with key allies in the Pacific. It boosts our shipbuilding budget to get more ships into the water faster, and also cheaper.

So, just as an example, Mr. Chairman, each of those items is important for dealing with this growing threat coming from North Korea, and we could sit here and go through a similar sort of discussion when it comes to Iran, or the provocative actions of Russia and China, or the terrorist organizations of various shades.

Of course, we cannot guarantee that the capabilities that we will vote on in this bill will be available by the time the crisis comes for, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we are still dealing with defense budgets that were cut by more than 20 percent at a time when the threats around the world were growing. So we can't guarantee that these capabilities will be available when we need them.

But what we can guarantee is, if we don't fund these things now, they will not be available when we need them, so that is the priority given to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, exactly 1 month ago, on June 12, Secretary Mattis and Chairman Dunford testified before our committee. And I would like to read just one paragraph of the Secretary's testimony where he was comparing what the military was like when he left it and when he came back as Secretary.

Secretary Mattis testified: ``Four years later, I returned to the Department and I have been shocked by what I have seen with our readiness to fight. For all the heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more harm to the readiness of our military than sequestration. We have sustained our ability to meet America's commitments abroad because our troops have stoically shouldered a much greater burden.''

Four years later, shocked, more harm by sequestration than the enemies in the field, and it is only because our folks are so incredible that they have born an increasing burden. That is what the Secretary testified.

Mr. Chairman, we have, indisputably, the finest military in the world, but it is also indisputable that it has been severely damaged by continuing resolutions, by sequestration, and by failure of the executive and legislative branches to adequately support the men and women out there on the front lines. We have an urgent need to begin to repair and rebuild our military.

And I also believe, Mr. Chairman, it is fundamentally wrong to send men and women out on dangerous missions without providing them the best equipment, in the best shape, with the best training that our country can possibly provide. This bill, if followed by matching appropriation, takes a significant step toward meeting that objective, to support those troops.

It also makes major reforms in the way the Pentagon does business. Among other reforms, it enables the military to buy commercial products through online sites such as Amazon, Staples, and Grainger. We require life cycle maintenance costs to be considered at the beginning of a program, as must intellectual property rights, to maximize competition in the maintenance and repairs. Oversight into service contracts has increased, and there is much more, of course, in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is the vehicle by which we usually, for 55 years, at least, fulfill our responsibilities under the Constitution that I mentioned, to provide for the common defense. I believe that is the first job of the Federal Government.

I want to just express my appreciation to each of the members of our committee. Each of them has contributed to the product before us. Each of them takes their responsibilities under the Constitution very seriously; no one more so than the Ranking Member, Mr.

Smith of Washington. We don't always agree on the judgment calls about issues, but I have no doubt that he and all the members of the committee try to do what is right for the country and put the interests of our troops first.

That is exactly the attitude that we must follow, I think, on the floor over the next 3 days as we go through the amendments which we will consider.

I also want to express appreciation to the committee and personal staff who have worked on this bill.

It has been a challenging year for a variety of reasons, but, as I started, I will finish. I am proud of this product. I hope it will gain the support of the entire House.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to make two points.

Number one, President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009. The first national security strategy he submitted was in May of 2010, a year-and-a-half later. So I don't think it is completely unreasonable that we haven't yet gotten the national security strategy from the new administration.

Secondly, the pay raise for the troops is based on the statutory formula which is related to the cost of living. That is where it comes from. And it seems to me to say, no, you don't really get what the formula says you deserve, is not appropriate.

Now, the administration did not request it, and the criticism from some is that we should not provide it. I think if the formula is wrong, we should change it, but if the formula says that is how much the cost of living has gone up, we should provide it.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), the chair of the Subcommittee on Personnel.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) who is the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon) who is a valued member of the committee and a retired Air Force General.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight) who is another very valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), a valuable member of our committee who continues to serve our Nation in the Reserves.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, as usual, the gentleman from Washington makes a number of good points.

We absolutely need to have national security based on a strategy and fund that strategy. There are many of us who would argue that is not what has happened in recent years.

I would just point out it was not only President Obama, but also President Bush and President Clinton. None of them provided a national security strategy in the first year that they were in office. I have tremendous confidence in Secretary Mattis, among others on the national security team. I believe they are looking at these issues and will provide us with a strategy.

The gentleman is also absolutely correct when he points out that the Defense Authorization bill is only one step in the process. There are many more steps to come.

I think we will have a budget on this floor to vote on shortly. I also expect that we are going to have appropriations to vote on at some point in the coming weeks. I also believe that we are going to have the opportunity to vote on dealing with the sequestration caps, which, by the way, the administration and I think most of us in the House and I presume most in the other body as well are in favor of doing away with because they have not been successful in accomplishing the goal for which they were put in place.

So there are clearly many more debates to have on other days. What we have this week on the floor before us is the Defense Authorization bill. And it is our obligation to authorize the things that the military needs.

I want to go back to the point that Mr. Banks made a few minutes ago. These are life-and-death decisions. Our hearts break, our prayers go out to the families of the 15 marines and the one sailor who lost their lives Monday of this week in the plane crash in Mississippi, just as our hearts go out and our prayers continue for the family members of the seven sailors who lost their lives off of Japan a few weeks ago.

What it reminds us is exactly what Mr. Banks said: this is a dangerous business, even on training mission, even on routine deployments. The men and women who volunteer to serve our country to protect us and to secure our freedoms deserve the very best our country can provide them. That is the goal of this bill: support the men and women who serve us and to further the national security of the United States.

You have heard from both sides of the aisle about many good things that are in this bill. We are going to go through a lot of amendments over the next several days. But at the end of the day, the point is, even with the good, the bad, and the ugly that gets put in this bill, to support the men and women who serve by voting ``yes,'' and I hope my colleagues will do that.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be included in the Record on H.R. 2810:

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.

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

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write concerning H.R. 2810, the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, as

amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation that

fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure.

However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.

This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding

that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice

the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or

to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters

contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within

the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge the

Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference

committee named to consider such provisions.

Please place a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee

report on H.R. 2810 and into the Congressional Record during

consideration of the measure on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Bill Shuster,

Chairman.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment that contains technical and conforming edits to the bill. I do not know of any controversy.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I am concerned about a growing notion that we can thank servicemembers for their service but then somehow not provide them everything they need to do their job, that we can continue to allow them to have airplanes that don't fly, ships that can't sail, not having the readiness they need to prepare for the missions we send them on. As the gentleman from Ohio said, that hurts people, and, unfortunately, that is what has happened in recent years.

Mr. Chairman, defense spending this year is still 18 percent below what it was in 2010. So what has happened is we have cut the defense budget while the threats that we send our military out to keep us safe from have grown. And remember, 2010 was before Russia invaded Crimea, before China started building islands in the South China Sea, before ISIS even existed.

This budget that is before us does not fix all our problems. It is a start, and I think it is about as much as we can do in a single year. But even if this bill passes, we are not up to 2010 levels; we have not made up the ground that we have lost.

I believe that the men and women who serve deserve our best. This bill, I believe, comes close to providing our best to them this year. It should be supported, and this amendment should be rejected.

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

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

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, in some ways, I think this may be one of the most important debates we have in the next 3 days because the question is whether our support for the men and women who serve in the military is conditional or not. Will we only repair the planes they fly, will we only fix the ships they sail if, and only if, exactly an equal amount will be added to domestic spending programs.

Will we only provide for military spouses for their needs? Will we only take care of wounded warriors for their increased needs if, and only if, an exact amount, the exact dollar for dollar, is added to domestic programs?

That holds the military hostage to a domestic political agenda, and I think that is fundamentally wrong at every level. These men and women go out and risk their lives to keep us safe, yet they not only have to worry about North Korea up on the DMZ, they not only have to worry about ISIS in Syria, they have to worry about whether we will pass some domestic program if we are going to adequately provide for them.

The Constitution says it is Congress' responsibility to provide for the military without condition. This sort of approach, saying, ``We will only do this for the military if, and only if, we get what we want on domestic programs'' breaks faith with the men and women who serve. It is wrong at every level.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I think all of us care about domestic spending programs. I certainly do. And I am not for the cuts that were proposed by the administration. That is what we are here to do and decide.

What I am opposed to is the sense of Congress that every dollar we increase in defense has to be matched by an increased dollar on the domestic side. That makes it conditional. That makes it tied to a domestic political agenda on the EPA, the IRS, education, transportation, whatever it is.

My point is that all of those things need to stand on their own merits. Defense needs to stand on its own merits, support for our military needs to stand on its own merits, having planes that fly and ships that sail and adequate funding for our troops and their families stand on their own merits.

It cannot be conditional upon whether or not this Congress or this President agrees on other spending items. They need to stand on their own two feet, too. But it is absolutely wrong to say we will only support these military folks if we get what we want on the domestic side.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais), a valuable member of our committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 431, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the en bloc amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 431, I offer a second package of amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I simply urge adoption of this package of en bloc amendments.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to address the topics that the gentleman from Washington addressed.

First off, I completely agree with him. This bill that we are considering today, tomorrow, and the next day is about 1,000 pages. I don't agree with it all. It has everything from missile defense to helping spouses pay licenses when they are forced to move from State to State, and I suspect I will not agree with it all at the end of the day.

What is important, though, is the overriding obligation we have to support the men and women who risk their lives to protect us. So, I think the gentleman is exactly right. Just because you vote for the bill does not mean you endorse everything in it. And at the same time, even if you disagree with some of the things in it, it is important to support the men and women who serve by voting for the bill, even if you have disagreements. I completely concur with the gentleman on that.

When it comes to the nuclear issue, there are a few points I want to make that maybe were not made during the previous debates.

Number one is we have drastically fewer nuclear weapons now than we had during the Cold War. I think a lot of people do not realize how significantly fewer weapons and delivery systems we have now than we had all during the fifties, sixties, seventies, and into the eighties.

But these are still machines. They do not live forever. Whether you are talking about the weapon itself or the delivery systems, they age; and, as they age, there are chemical reactions, parts wear out, and things change. So they have to be modernized if our deterrent is to remain credible.

Now, you can get into an argument about, okay, how many weapons does it take to be credible and what delivery systems are required to penetrate defenses, to hold enough targets at risk, to have that credible defense, but what I think there can be little debate about is that the world is growing more dangerous in the nuclear field. We have seen what happened with North Korea. There is enormous concern about what happens in the Middle East and elsewhere.

I believe that our nuclear deterrent is the foundation upon which the rest of our defense efforts are built, and that foundation must remain credible. It has to be rebuilt. My understanding is the estimates are at no point will rebuilding that entire nuclear deterrent require more than 7 percent of any year's defense budget, 7 percent for the foundation and 93 percent for the House that is built on it.

It is essential that we maintain that credible deterrent, and it has got to be big enough to be credible so that a country like China does not think they can build a few more weapons and get to parity with the United States.

On the subject of BRAC, I do disagree with the gentleman from Washington on this point. Two years ago, I specifically asked that we have included in the bill that was signed into law a requirement that the Pentagon provide us with an updated cost estimate on excess infrastructure.

What we have all been citing is a 2004 estimate that there is about 20 percent excess infrastructure. Twenty-two percent is the number that is often used. What we got back was seven pages of nothing.

By the way, that was not prohibited by the bill. It was required by the bill.

What I am interested in is a real updated, data-driven study that shows whether we have excess infrastructure and of what sort. And I think that is exactly what Secretary Mattis said. Let me quote his exact sentence:

I am not comfortable right now that we have a full 20-some

percent excess infrastructure. I need to go back through and

look at this again because I don't want to get rid of

something that we can't sustain and then say we have got to

go buy some land here in 10 years.

I think that is what we need is an updated study. And if it shows that we have got excess infrastructure, I am not at all opposed to having another round of BRAC. I am very opposed to having another round like 2005, which, I believe, it is either CBO or GAO, I can't remember which, says has not yet broken even 12 years later. It still costs more money than it has, and it has not started to save yet. So I don't want a repeat of that.

I am interested if it shows that we do have excess infrastructure and a way to deal with that. Secretary Mattis, I believe, shares that view, but until we see the data, I am not supportive of another round.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point. I am not convinced that the gentleman and I really differ on this point.

What the bill says, now, is: ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize an additional base alignment and closure round.'' That is what it says. It says we don't authorize it, of course. It does not prohibit a study to say whether we ought to. Again, I would welcome a real data-driven study that will help us reach that conclusion.

Mr. Chairman, this is just further evidence that there is a wide range of issues and discussions to have on this bill, all for that purpose of supporting the men and women who serve our Nation.

I support en bloc package No. 2. I urge my colleagues to, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 431, I offer a third package of amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support en bloc package No. 3, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 431, I offer a fourth package of amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 76 printed in part B of House Report 115-212 be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I support en bloc package No. 4, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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