Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the life, legacy, and service of Green Bay native, Mr. Firman Balza.

Mr. Firman Balza was one of America's last surviving servicemen from the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. Answering the call from his country, Firman signed up for the 34th Division of the U.S. Naval Reserves in Green Bay in 1940 at the age of 17. He entered the Navy a few months later and was assigned to the USS Maryland in April of 1941. The USS Maryland would leave for Pearl Harbor in July of 1941; Firman was aboard the vessel as a gunner's mate first-class at the time of the attacks.

The morning of December 7, 1941, Firman was preparing for Mass when he saw the first Japanese bombers flying overhead. Mass that morning would have been aboard the USS Oklahoma. The USS Oklahoma was moored next to the USS Maryland in the harbor when it suffered major damage and capsized. Firman bravely ran into the face of danger and took up arms as he defended the base with anti-aircraft guns. He later helped pull his deceased brothers-in-arms from the sunken ship. Four hundred- sixty men perished on the Oklahoma that day, and the Maryland lost five.

During the four days following the attacks, Firman and his fellow soldiers rescued 32 men from the hull of the Oklahoma. Firman continued his brave service to the country for three years on the USS Maryland participating in Guadalcanal, the Battle of Tarawa, and the Battle of Kwajalein Atoll. After the war, Firman was assigned to the USS Bayfield APA 33 and was sent to the Marshall Islands for atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll. On February 7, 1947, he was discharged from the Navy after six years and seven days on active duty.

Firman was one of more than 16 million ordinary people who did extraordinary acts during World War II. His willingness to begin sharing his story in 2003 at the age of 80 allowed many across Wisconsin, including students across northeast Wisconsin, to hear his account of that day. It was in 2003 that he first visited the Punch Bowl Cemetery in Hawaii and realized he wanted to be a voice to tell part of the story of those 2,335 servicemen and women who perished on that day of infamy. If Firman left one message with all he spoke to, it was ``Truly, man has got to learn to get along with each other.''

Mr. Balza was 95 when he passed away on October 10, 2018. He was born September 25, 1923, to Theophile and Mary Balza, the

youngest of 11 sons. On April 23, 1949, he married Nathalie M. Larscheid. He was a true lover of the outdoors; he enjoyed camping with his family and hunting and fishing with his brother-in-law, Carlton Larscheid. He was very proud of becoming a licensed pilot at the age of 63.

Words cannot justly thank Mr. Balza for his many years of service to our country. A treasure for a community and nation Mr. Balza cannot be replaced. May his service, dedication, and sacrifice be remembered by a grateful nation and all who knew him.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the life, legacy, and service of Green Bay native, Mr. Firman Balza.

Mr. Firman Balza was one of America's last surviving servicemen from the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. Answering the call from his

country, Firman joined the 34th division of the U.S. Naval Reserves in Green Bay in 1940 at the age of 17. He entered the Navy a few months later and was assigned to the USS Maryland in April of 1941. When the USS Maryland left for Pearl Harbor in July of 1941, Firman was aboard the vessel as a gunner's mate first-class at the time of the attacks.

The morning of December 7, 1941, Firman was preparing for Mass aboard the USS Oklahoma when he saw the first Japanese bombers flying overhead. The USS Oklahoma was next to the USS Maryland in the harbor when it suffered major damage and capsized. Firman bravely ran into the face of danger and took up arms as he defended the base with anti- aircraft guns. He later helped pull his deceased brothers in arms from the sunken ship. On that tragic day, 460 men perished on the USS Oklahoma and the USS Maryland lost five brave souls. The 4 days following the attacks, Firman and his fellow soldiers rescued 32 men from the hull of the USS Oklahoma.

Firman continued his brave service to the country for three years on the USS Maryland participating in Guadalcanal, the Battle of Tarawa, and the Battle of Kwajalein Atoll. After the war, Firman was assigned to the USS Bayfield APA 33 and was sent to the Marshall Islands for atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll. On February 7, 1947 he was discharged from the Navy after six years and seven days on active duty.

Firman was one of more than 16 million ordinary people that did extraordinary things during World War II. His willingness to share his story in 2003 at the age of 80 allowed many across Wisconsin, including students throughout Northeast Wisconsin, to hear his account of that day. It was in 2003 that he first visited the Punch Bowl Cemetery in Hawaii and realized he wanted to be a voice to tell part of the story of those 2,335 servicemen and women who perished on that day of infamy. With each retelling of his story, Firman shared an important message: ``Truly, man has got to learn to get along with each other.'' Firman's wise words still ring true today.

Mr. Balza was 95 when he passed away on Wednesday, October 10, 2018. He was born September 25, 1923, to Theophile and Mary Balza, the youngest of 11 sons. On April 23, 1949, he married Nathalie M. Larscheid. He was a true lover of the outdoors, he enjoyed camping with his family and hunting and fishing with his brother-in-law, Carlton Larscheid. He was very proud of becoming a licensed pilot at the age of 63.

Words cannot justly thank Mr. Balza for his many years of service to our country. A treasure for a community and nation, Mr. Balza cannot be replaced. May his service, dedication, and sacrifice be remembered by all.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my colleagues here: Mr. Arrington from Texas, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Khanna.

I want to say, since we started on this journey a year and a half ago, I have been blown away by the response that I have gotten from constituents in my district.

Ro Khanna and I wrote an op-ed together very early on in Congress where we laid out three priorities for draining the swamp, one of which was term limits; and to this day, I still have people coming up to me on the street saying: I love that. I just love the fact that you

were willing to write an op-ed with a Democrat.

I just think it gets to what my colleagues have laid out, which is that issues like this cross party lines. They have the overwhelming support of 80 percent of the American people.

We have to ask ourselves the serious question as to whether we are willing to disregard the wisdom, the common sense of 80 percent of the American people. I think we do so at our own peril.

I recognize that there are principled and serious objections to the idea of term limits, and I would like to address what I think are the three most salient, albeit briefly.

The one thing I hear a lot from opponents of term limits is that, well, we already have term limits built into the system. We have term limits every 2 years in the House and every 6 years in the Senate in the form of elections.

I understand the logic there, but anyone who is taking a serious look at how elections work in this country cannot conclude that there is an honest chance for newcomers to overcome the serious hurdles that we have placed to them running for office and to overcome the serious advantages that we have given incumbents.

I think my friend, Mr. Khanna, is the one pointing out that, in many cases, the turnover rates among Members of Congress is actually lower than in certain European monarchies, which goes to the fact that incumbency comes with enormous advantage.

Think of how many good people, good citizens who love this country aren't even willing to run because they see it as such an insurmountable task. That shows how far we have gotten away from the model of the citizen legislator.

I won't even get into the issue of PAC money that is available to incumbents, as well as the way in which incumbents are able to use their official budget to contact voters in a way that people trying to challenge incumbents are not. So I don't think that argument stands up to serious scrutiny.

The second thing I have heard, which I take seriously, is that term limits have been tried at the State level, and there have been mixed results. In some cases, there are arguments that they have actually had a negative effect. I would say that, most basically, that experiment has not been run enough times to be significant in a meaningful, statistical sense.

Contrarily, we have actually run this experiment here over and over again, and we have seen the results of careerism and the use of congressional office as a stepping stone and as a means to enrichment.

But I would also say you have to make a fundamental distinction between service at the Federal level and service at the State and local level. And it is my belief that the Founders intended service at the Federal level to be, as my colleague Jodey Arrington more eloquently pointed out, a season of service.

You want expertise and authority concentrated at the lowest possible level that is responsible, where it can be more responsive to the needs of the people and, also, more accountable. So I bring that up to say you have to make a distinction between service at the State level and service at the Federal level.

The final thing I hear, and I think it is actually the most serious objection, is that, if you term-limit Members of Congress, you will only empower the staff; you will further empower a staff that, by the way, is already overempowered and already running this place because Members do not take an interest in the serious work of legislation and, instead, are only interested in perpetuating the Kabuki theater that dominates what we do in this place.

I am a former staffer. I worked in the Senate. I was paid to advise Members of the Senate on how they should make decisions. I can tell you that staff power is inversely proportional to Member interest. In other words, if Members are not interested in doing the hard work of showing up to their committee hearings, legislating, then staff is going to run the place.

If you create a dynamic where Members feel they have a limited period of time to make an impact via term limits, then it is my firm belief that you will actually have the opposite effect, that you will have Members taking ownership of the legislative process rather than outsourcing it to not only unelected congressional staff, but unelected members of the executive branch and the judicial branch whom the American people did not hire to make laws.

They hired us to make laws, but we are failing in that fundamental duty. We have placed most of the Federal Government on autopilot, and we are more than happy to outsource consequential decisions that we should be making constitutionally to Article II and Article III.

The final thing I will say, though: Put aside all the philosophical arguments for or against term limits. Given what my colleagues have laid out, given the historically low levels of approval that this body faces right now, the shared sense among all of us that Congress, as an institution, is fundamentally broken, that it is in need of some serious reform, we need to do something different.

I cannot promise you that term limits will solve all of our problems, but I believe firmly that, if nothing else--if nothing else--it will send a signal to the American people that we are interested in changing the status quo and the fundamental dynamic here in Washington, D.C., because the American people have made their opinion clear over and over again, and that is that they are not satisfied with the status quo.

To continue business as usual, to continue making the same mistakes over and over again, would satisfy the literal definition of insanity; and I would hope that we could avoid that, at the very least. What my colleague Mr. Fitzpatrick said and my colleague Jodey Arrington echoed, that we should demand a vote, is absolutely right.

We are going to have a Speaker's race no matter who wins the election. This should be a key part of that debate. Getting a vote on the House floor is something that we should demand, and this is an idea whose time has finally come.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate and honor the career, service, and 100th birthday of Oneida resident, Ms. Rose Kerstetter.

A 23-year-old working in North Dakota, she enlisted in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) in 1943--the middle of World War II. Told that there was no rifle training for women, Ms. Kerstetter paid for personal rifle lessons and earned a Marksman's Badge. Nine months after her enlistment into the WAAC, when the WAAC became the Women's Army Corps (WAC), she became officially enlisted in the U.S. Army.

Ms. Kerstetter originally served as a stenographer and was headquartered in Camp Hood, Texas. Demonstrating great initiative and leadership, she was eventually promoted to Staff Sergeant. It was at this rank that Ms. Kerstetter was honorably discharged, only after her brother, a Marine, was wounded. We owe Ms. Kerstetter, and her brother, a great debt for their service to our country.

Ms. Kerstetter's commitment to her community did not end after her honorable discharge. For more than 20 years, she has volunteered in her community through art. A greatly skilled potter, she strengthens her community and demonstrates pride in her Oneida heritage by teaching pottery to anyone who wants to learn. It is this type of dedication that has earned her national artistic and cultural recognition, including a 2002 Community Spirit Award Honoree and a 2004 Cultural Capital Fellow.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in recognizing Ms. Kerstetter's commitment to protecting and serving our country, and her dedication to her Wisconsin community. These accomplishments are worthy of the highest commendation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 147th anniversary of the Great Peshtigo Fire. The Great Peshtigo Fire claimed more lives than any other fire in our nation's history, but it is an often-overlooked tragedy. Few of us can imagine a blaze large enough to consume millions of acres across Northeast Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula. Yet the destructive force of the fire is a powerful testament to the resilience of the Wisconsinites who emerged from the tragedy and rebuilt from the ashes.

The year 1871 was a defining moment for the survivors who, with no exceptions, lost family members, neighbors, friends, homes, and businesses. The village of Peshtigo lost more than half its residents to the fire on the night of October 8, 1871. The exact number of deaths is uncertain because many loggers traveled in and out of the city each day, however, most estimates indicate that more than 700 people died in Peshtigo as fire consumed the city. Hundreds more perished in the smaller communities spread across the 1.5 million acres destroyed by the blaze.

Although the village of Peshtigo was built on both sides of the Peshtigo River, the fire spread too quickly for many to escape. Eyewitnesses described the firestorm as a roaring tornado that fell from the sky with searing heat. By the following morning, the village was reduced to a blackened wasteland in which almost nothing recognizable remained. As survivors emerged from the river, they discovered that the blaze had melted even metal coins and casks of nails.

The Great Peshtigo Fire occurred during an often-forgotten chapter in American history that witnessed three of the worst fires on record break out across the Midwest. Although the Great Peshtigo Fire is sometimes overshadowed by the Great Chicago fire that occurred at the same time, the fire in Wisconsin was far deadlier and remains the worst in U.S. history. Indeed, news of the destruction in Peshtigo may have been slow to spread because the fire had consumed telegraph wires as it burned.

Despite this unprecedented destruction, the residents of Peshtigo gradually rebuilt their city and worked hard to make it a thriving community once more. In offering this proclamation today, it is my hope that this tragic episode will remain in the public memory. I invite this body to recognize the victims of the Great Peshtigo Fire--a blaze that stands as our country's worst in both its size and lethality. I also want to commemorate the extraordinary resilience of the survivors who, though they lost everything, set out to rebuild their lives and their town. It is a testimony to their efforts that Peshtigo recovered and became a vibrant community again.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in recognizing the 147th anniversary of the Great Peshtigo Fire of 1871.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of Nichols, Wisconsin. On September 8, 2018, Nichols will mark this event through its planned Centennial Celebration. The event will focus on the rich history of the village from its inception until today.

When Mr. Arthur Nichols first observed the land, he was impressed by the location, believing it to be the perfect place for a modern city. The State Highway, Wolf River, and Wisconsin Northern Railroad running near the town made it a prime location for the development of a booming city. Mr. Nichols was a dreamer and when he and several of the early settlers purchased the 160 acres, they thought it would become the hub between Green Bay, Appleton, Clintonville, and Shawano. Nichols quickly had running water, sewage treatment, electricity, and even telephone service.

Nichols' infrastructure expanded and a bridge was built over the nearby Shioc River. Despite a small population Nichols spirit was immense and its desire to grow was evident. Early residents worked together to establish a church, school, and businesses like a barbershop, laundromat, gas station, and grocery store to fill the needs of the community.

Growth quickly expanded from infrastructure and business to entertainment. While a football team some may know started in nearby Green Bay in 1919, Nichols residents started a baseball team in 1922, known as the Nichols Nitro's.

Nichols may be small but is a strong and determined community. Building on its founders, the generations following those settlers continue that strength, determination, and pride in keeping the founders' early motto of being ``the street where old friends meet''.

I ask that the Members of the House of Representatives join me in commending the celebration of the centennial anniversary of the Village of Nichols, Wisconsin. A great place where people have been building relationships and stories for the last 100 years. May it continue this fine tradition for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of the USCGC Escanaba. On June 13, 1943 the Escanaba--a 165 ft. ``A'' type United States Coast Guard cutter--was lost during the Battle of the Atlantic, along with 103 of its 105 crew members. Of those lost were four brave men from Door County, Wisconsin--Clarence E. Christenson, Leonard Delsart, George W. Larson, and Victor J. Londo, Jr. I am proud to honor them today.

The original USCGC Escanaba was stationed on the Great Lakes from her commissioning in 1932 until the start of U.S. military involvement in World War II in 1941. In February of 1943, the Escanaba and her crew proved their valor in the war, rescuing 132 men from a torpedoed transport in the North Atlantic. Tragically, the Escanaba would set out on its final mission just four months after this heroic rescue.

On Monday, August 6, 2018, Door County, Wisconsin is proud to welcome the third ever Coast Guard Cutter to bear the name Escanaba. This ship is a true embodiment of the original ship's values and legacy. The 75th anniversary commemoration in Door County allows us an opportunity to pay our respects to those four honorable Wisconsinites who sacrificed so much for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in remembering the USCGC Escanaba and her crew. Their commitment to protecting and serving our country is worthy of the highest commendation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend from Wyoming for yielding the time but, more importantly, for her leadership in this effort to highlight the devastating impacts when we fail to provide full, on-time, and robust funding to our military.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 994, which would recognize the significant readiness challenges facing the United States Marine Corps, and warn that budgetary uncertainty is undermining the ability of our Marines to do their vital work day

in and day out in defense of this Nation.

Since fiscal year 2010, the Active-Duty Marine Corps has shrunk by 8 percent. Thanks to the work of this House, that figure is finally trending in the other direction, but there is still much more work to be done, all of which requires stable, robust, and on-time funding.

Seven years after the Budget Control Act we are still digging out from holes we dug ourselves. In hearing after hearing, we have heard military leaders make clear that they will face increased risk due to continuing resolutions and years of accumulated defense cuts.

It can be all too easy to wave off these warnings. After all, our military and Marine Corps, in particular, has a ``can-do spirit'' that is second to none. But increased risk isn't just an abstract notion. It can have very real consequences. The more than 60 Marines who have perished in marine aviation accidents since 2011 are a tragic reminder of what increased risk looks like in practice.

The new national security and national defense strategies marked sea changes in American security policy. With the new guidance that great power competition, and not terrorism, is the primary challenge to American national security policy. There is still much work to be done to ensure that the Marine Corps, along with the rest of the military, is best positioned to compete for the long-term.

From contested entry to dispersed operations from austere locations to contingency response, the Marine Corps is facing great challenges and opportunities. The obstacles are many as increasingly capable adversaries are forcing the Marine Corps to reconsider long-held assumptions about amphibious landings and its ability to operate close to shore.

In the face of these challenges, the Corps will have to do what it does best, innovate, and come up with new solutions to execute timeless missions. Ultimately, however, I am optimistic; not just because I was privileged to serve 7 years in the Marine Corps, and I know the quality of the men and women who continue to serve, but because of many other factors, including the simple geography of the Indo-Pacific, which is tailor-made for the United States Marine Corps.

As former adversaries learned on the islands of Guadalcanal, New Guinea, and Tarawa, the absolute last place on Earth you want to be is between a Marine and his objective.

In the long run however, the only thing that can stop the Marine Corps is this body's failure to do its job. If we fail to provide on- time, adequate, or predictable funding, we will undermine our Marine Corps' ability to get the job done.

This resolution takes a small step to recognize these challenges and commit to doing better. We owe our beloved Marine Corps nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the sentiment expressed by my colleague, Mr. Smith, that we do need to look at the overall budget picture. I think what has changed in that picture over time has been the amount of the budget consumed by mandatory spending, which is a very difficult problem. I concede that it is going to require men and women of good faith on both sides of the aisle to come together and have, if nothing else, an honest debate.

The argument was also made that we spend more on defense than a large number of our competitors and our allies, combined, in many cases. I hear that a lot. That is true. It is also not that helpful of a statistic, as it ignores both the size of our economy, the relative size of our economy, as well as the unique nature of our global commitments.

A more useful matrix of perhaps what we are spending as a percentage of GDP, we are still spending below the post-World War II average on defense as a percentage of GDP. For example, during the 1950s, 8 years of peace and prosperity, we were spending closer to 10 percent of our GDP on defense.

So I just think we need to be careful when we throw around different terms like this. And I welcome that debate. It is one we definitely need to have.

I just would close by saying our Marines put their lives on the line on a daily basis. When we go to war, we cannot guarantee that everyone will come home safely, and the Marines know that. They gladly put their lives on the line. They take the risk, and they ride to the sound of the guns regardless.

But I do think that we need to look at what we have the power to affect, and what we have the power to affect

here as Members of Congress, regardless, actually, of who is in the White House, what we have the obligation to affect is to guarantee that we will never send our servicemembers into an unfair fight, that we will provide them with the training, the equipment, and the numbers they need to run up the score on the enemy with decisive and overwhelming force.

Mr. Speaker, that is what this resolution is about, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication of a new veterans memorial in the Village of Coleman, Wisconsin. Found within Lillian's Park, the ``All Veterans Memorial'' honors veterans from every branch who have served in wars on behalf of our country. We will never know all the sacrifices our veterans have made, however this memorial will stand in recognition of their service and honor their example.

The ``All Veterans Memorial'' was made possible by the generous support of American Legion Post 280 and the Coleman community. The Kalbes-Seewald American Legion Post sold their legion hall last fall and dedicated the proceeds to the construction of a memorial for the veterans of our armed forces, as well as POWs/MIA. The Village of Coleman has also enthusiastically supported the project and contributed generously to its development.

The ``All Veterans Memorial'' is a fine tribute to the men and women who have given so much to our country. I hope that every visitor to Lillian's Park will pause beside the granite stone to remember our veterans--past, present, and future. Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in commending American Legion Post 280 and the Village of Coleman as they dedicate this new monument.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment to restore $24 million for Navy AIM-120 Delta AMRAAM procurement to match House-passed NDAA levels.

When he rolled out the National Defense Strategy, Secretary Mattis was clear: ``Great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.''

Nowhere is this competition more intense than in the Indo-Pacific, where the ``fight tonight'' mission has never been more urgent, given threats from both great powers and rogue regimes.

Pentagon leaders have been clear: addressing critical munitions shortfalls such as the AMRAAM is a top priority.

During his confirmation, the new Indo-PACOM commander, Phil Davidson, listed critical munitions stockpiles as one of his top two capability and capacity challenges to addressing threats in the Indo-Pacific. Admiral Davidson went on to list advancements in air-to-air munitions-- and the AIM-120D in particular--as his top solution to challenges presented by anti-access area-denial capabilities.

Unfortunately, our AMRAAM inventory is currently at only 50 percent of the requirement--50 percent. We cannot afford to cut any further.

It is no surprise, then, that the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill singles out munitions reductions as an area of special concern. To quote the Statement of Administration Policy: ``DOD still has shortfalls in preferred munitions needed to achieve successfully the operational plans identified in the National Defense Strategy.'' And the very first munition mentioned is the AIM-120D AMRAAM.

Let's be clear about the implications here. The NDS is about great power competition. Our ability to win--or, much preferably, deter a great power war--comes down to our ability to execute these plans and impose our will on our adversaries.

These same adversaries are watching American defense spending debates right now, looking for signs such as failing to address publicly reported shortfalls, that America is not serious about long-term competition. Decisions like this, here and now, may seem small, but they all add up to tell a story that our friends and our foes, alike, receive loud and clear.

Last year, on a bipartisan basis, we were able to help address key Mark 48 torpedo shortfalls in this appropriations bill in order to address a critical war-fighting need. I hope we can build on this success this time around.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to match the House-passed authorization level as well as the administration request, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I would say I am all for finding efficiencies wherever we can get them, particularly in a very tight budgetary environment. That is why, in structuring this amendment, we need a concerted effort to prioritize the urgent operational requirements faced day in and day out in the Pacific where, notwithstanding any past delays, the balance of power, I would argue, is rapidly shifting against us and where any further shifts could really harm our ability to project power in the future.

We have also provided the Defense Contract Management Agency the flexibility to make modest steps toward finding efficiencies in its budget. Even after accounting for this offset, DCMA O&M would be funded at nearly $25 million over the House-passed NDAA level.

I would also say, our offset supports House-passed NDAA reductions to bureaucratic overhead in the so-called DOD fourth estate. In line with finding efficiencies, the fourth estate is comprised of the organizations within DOD that do not report to a military service and have proven difficult to manage or oversee, and I think the savings identified will go directly toward critical munitions for the warfighter--in other words, maximizing tooth while minimizing tail-- getting as much of the resource as possible out of the bureaucracy in the Pentagon and at the front lines where our warfighters need it most.

I have enormous respect for the chairwoman's position, I appreciate her willingness to consider this, and I appreciate the robust debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, as with the preceding amendment, this proposal addresses critical munitions shortfalls, this time by providing $33 million for Air Force AIM-120D AMRAAM procurement to match the NDAA.

The same argument for Navy AMRAAM procurement apply equally to this amendment as well. In order to support Indo-PACOM's fight tonight mission, we must increase our stockpiles of critical munitions. With our AMRAAM inventory currently at 50 percent of the requirement, we cannot afford to see further cuts.

This amendment would simply restore the House-passed NDAA level for Air Force AMRAAM procurement, and addresses one of the specific concerns outlined in the SAP on this bill.

I understand the argument on finding efficiencies. I just think it is worth remembering, particularly when we look at that region of the world, that aggression in the Pacific has historically caught our country off guard. After all, not only did the attack on Pearl Harbor and the North Korean advance past the 38th parallel come as a surprise, but we were similarly stunned by the rapid Chinese entry into the Korean war.

These mistakes cost American lives and forced our men and women in uniform to play catch-up. And I know that such a level of conflict may seem unthinkable in the post-Cold War world, but history has a way of, if not repeating itself, rhyming from time to time.

While this small investment will not inoculate us entirely against being caught flat-footed once again, it is a small step towards addressing critical munition shortfalls and giving our combatant and commanders the tools they need to deter conflict in the first place; and, if the worst does happen, be ready with the munitions they need.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this proposal, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. Chairman, I know, to some extent, we always seem to be making choices between near-term readiness requirements and long-term modernization efforts. I would submit, however, that that is a false choice, or perhaps is a choice that has been foisted upon us by bad budgetary decisions that we have made in the past 6 years.

The reality is, if you take a look at the world, we are going to have to do both things at the same time: invest in both readiness and modernization.

So I have enormous respect for those efforts to find efficiencies and make sure we can put dollars where people need them most. I simply, on balance, would like to put money in the hands of warfighters who are dealing with threats on the front lines as much as humanly possible.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the career and service of Green Bay resident, Mr. Pat Riordan.

A St. Norbert College graduate, he was appointed chief executive officer of Nsight in 1975 and oversaw the 1987 launch of the wireless provider, Cellcom. Nsight evolved from a modest company providing cellular services to Pulaski, Wisconsin, to a robust business supplying wireless services to Northeast Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Mr. Riordan's leadership as CEO was incredibly valuable, and the impact he has made on the industry in Wisconsin is indelible. His extensive knowledge of the industry has earned him many key positions on boards and organizations including the Wisconsin State Telecommunications Association, Associated Carrier Group, and Ha Ha's Hero Foundation, to name a few. Adding to his accolades, Mr. Riordan received the Outstanding Achievement Award from the Rural Carriers Association in 2008.

As we pause to look back on the ways Mr. Riordan has impacted Northeast Wisconsin, it is without a doubt that Mr. Riordan himself continues to look forward. Upon his retirement as CEO, Mr. Riordan will assume a new role in looking to future trends. He will be tasked with thinking three to five years out and charting how to best incorporate new emerging employee skill sets.

Mr. Riordan's applications of extraordinary skills and knowledge of his industry have helped grow his company and brand. His commitment to both his company and to his community are worthy of the highest commendation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as a free and open society, the United States has always drawn in those from around the world seeking to study here, to live here, individuals seeking to observe and participate in our way of life. Indeed, we benefit from these visitors when they take on our values and go home with them.

However, when an individual comes to study and work in the United States, we must take care both that they are here for their stated purpose and that they are allowed to fulfill their legitimate goal without disruption.

As one FBI study has found, foreign intelligence services have been taking advantage of higher education institutions and personnel for many years. This problem is particularly acute with China. That is why administrations on both sides of the aisle have considered measures to protect academic research from foreign exploitation.

In recent years, we have seen a number of cases damaging the national security:

In 2008, a Tennessee professor was convicted of exporting defense articles without a license after using Chinese students to conduct Air Force research that they exported to China;

In 2009, a researcher at Duke University sent data back to China, which led to the creation of a multibillion-dollar Chinese company;

And in 2015, Chinese professors were among six defendants charged by the Department of Justice with theft of trade secrets on behalf of Chinese companies and academic institutions.

As the United States addresses China's increasingly aggressive rise, it is critical that we consider how to effectively address these issues as a free society. That is why my amendment requires that a whole-of- government strategy on China mandated by the NDAA incorporate two key elements: exploitation of visa programs to enter the United States by the Chinese Communist Party and the party's intimidation and coercion of Chinese nationals in the United States.

This is not a blanket ban or requirement of any sort to limit the number of Chinese students studying in the U.S.; rather, it is merely adding an important element to the existing strategy required under the NDAA to address a whole-of-government challenge comprehensively.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, with the few seconds that I have left, I would just say, to extend the football metaphor, perhaps to the point of absurdity, our defense doesn't even get on the field. We keep drawing pick six after pick six; therefore, allowing intellectual property theft, which is the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, by the Chinese, which is what the Blair-Huntsman Commission laid out.

So I look forward to working with my colleague on a more comprehensive approach, but in the meantime, I hope he will work with me on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a soldier who, for the past 34 years, has been an exceptional and faithful servant to the nation. With the retirement today of Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, the U.S. Army is losing a towering figure, who more than anyone, embodies what he has described as the ``warrior ethos.'' As someone who had the good fortune to work with H.R., I can say that serving under his command was one of the great privileges of my life.

General McMaster has described the warrior ethos as ``a covenant between the members of our profession comprised of values such as honor, duty, courage, loyalty, and self-sacrifice.'' H.R. has lived by this covenant, earning a well-deserved reputation as one of the Army's pre-eminent soldier-scholars and the honor of serving as the President's primary advisor on national security issues.

Over his more than three decades of distinguished service, General McMaster stands out for his success in both conventional and irregular conflict. During the Gulf War, his textbook assault at 73 Easting stands as a high-water mark of American conventional superiority. More than a decade later, his early adoption of a population-centric approach to warfare turned the tide in Tal Afar and helped usher in a sea change in the American approach to combating the insurgency in Iraq.

General McMaster has also stood out for his steadfast commitment to puncturing what he has called the ``vampire fallacy'' of easy war. This sensibility is captured by the historian T.R. Fehrenbach, who wrote in This Kind of War, ``you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life--but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud.''

As H.R. has described, ``Our military is a living historical community and those of us serving today are determined to preserve the legacy of courageous, selfless service that we have inherited from the veterans who have gone before us.'' There is no one whose legacy of courageous and selfless service is more worthy of preservation than General McMaster.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in saluting Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster for his service on behalf of a grateful nation. I thank H.R. for showing us all what it means to live by the warrior ethos.

Mr. Speaker, I stood in this very spot about 1 year ago urging Congress to do the work of the American people, the work they sent us here to do. I introduced a piece of legislation called the Do Your Job Act, which is simple. It would not allow Congress to go into recess unless we have actually done our work, passed all of our appropriations bills.

Instead, I fear that we are going to find ourselves in the same crisis that we found ourselves in just a few months ago. That is why I was glad to see that the President recently said that we should cancel the August recess, if necessary, if we can't do our job.

In just 2 months, we will once again adjourn for a month-long recess without a budget or getting all our appropriations done, to say nothing of the other issues that remain unresolved, like immigration--take your pick.

Once again, if we don't make some hard choices, the government may shut down. I think that is unacceptable. We know exactly how this plays out. We saw it last year, as we careened from one budgetary deadline to the next, with one short-term extension after another.

We simply can't keep repeating these same mistakes over and over again. To do so would be the literal definition of ``insanity.''

So I urge my colleagues: let's put an end to this madness. Let's stay here, if necessary, even if that means canceling recess. Let's work with a sense of urgency and purpose to better this country, because that is what our constituents sent us here to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. John R. Gossage's 31 years of service in law enforcement, including two terms as Brown County sheriff, and the successful legacy he leaves as Brown County's top law enforcement officer. Sheriff Gossage's long and reputable career includes many professional accomplishments that reflect the caliber of his leadership and service.

Sheriff Gossage joined the police department in May 1987 and proved himself a natural leader. He worked hard and steadily rose in the department as he mastered numerous life-saving skills from law enforcement operations to public-safety issues. He became the chief deputy under former sheriff Dennis Kocken's administration, and quickly received the endorsements of Mr. Kocken and other previous sheriffs in his campaign for county leadership.

Sheriff Gossage has served with distinction in what he calls ``the finest law enforcement agency in the nation.'' Brown County is the oldest sheriff's office in Wisconsin, but Sheriff Gossage has faced many challenging cases throughout his tenure. Nevertheless, he has provided steady leadership during times of change and supported his department while protecting Northeast Wisconsin communities.

The historic Brown County sheriff's office, Mr. Gossage once observed, is much like the Green Bay Packers--a local institution rich with traditions, achievements, and pride. There is no doubt that Sheriff Gossage will be missed by the officers who worked and served with him, the county officials who depended on him, and members of the communities he helped keep safe. As Sheriff Gossage steps down to pursue other opportunities, I have no doubt that he will continue to serve well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in commending Mr. Gossage for his service as sheriff and his long career protecting the great state of Wisconsin.