Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. House Meets For Legislative Business 20170712

While reducing the stress and strain on the force and their families. Further focuses last years management reform of the military Health System to provide clear responsibility for the delivery of Health Care Services and military medical treatment facilities, and for military medical readiness, the bill also stops all illconsidered costsaving measures that would close several u. S. Military hospitals overseas. We believe our Service Members and their families should continue to have the best medical care possible, wherever they serve. It improves response by adding a new provision specifically prohibiting nonconsensual of expanding Victim Counsel training to include training on the unique consequences by male and it can be appointed by a victim prior to a court martial. Finally, Service Members returning to civilian life and their spouses are challenged the chair the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Thornberry i yield 30 seconds. Mr. Coffman and rather than imposing a single federal standard, we provide a 500 reimbursement to defray these costs and we ask the states to develop common standards where possible. I want to thank ms. Speier and her staff and support in this process. We are joined by an active and informed and dedicated group of subcommittee members. Their recommendations and priorities are reflected in the National Defense authorization act in 2018 and i appreciate the dedication a and hard work of the subcommittee staff. I urge my colleagues to support this. And i yield back. The chair the gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from washington. Mr. Smith i yield two minutes the gentlelady from california. Recognize our subcommittee chairs and members in bringing this bill to the floor. As has been stated, the budget numbers we are talking about contained in the bill are aspirational. We have not passed a budget resolution and the budget control act is the law of the land. While it was a failing and pointing fingers does not solve the problem. We are on an uncertain and dangerous path, where we have not been honest with ourselves and where we continue to play games with our men and women serving in the military. We must recognize the only path of solving these issues is Bipartisan Legislation to repeal the b. C. A. Continuing resolutions and unrealistic bipartisan budget amounts to malpractice. I have to say, that i was encouraged that the senate included a proposal to continue paying the widows who died in defense of that our nation. It is our fundamental responsibility. And im encouraged by the promise our chairman made regarding this issue. The issue has to be fixed and it will be. And he has said there are difficult tradeoffs that have to be made. We will have to contribute to the solutions. Im prepared to do that. We have to hope together that we move forward and be prepared to do that. Thank you, mr. Speaker, i yield. The chair the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry i yield two minutes to the chairman, mrs. Hartzler. The chair the gentlelady is recognized. Mrs. Hartzler i rise in support year 2018 National Defense authorization act. As members of congress, its our responsibility to provide support to our men and uniform wlile they serve our nation. This bill takes significant steps to address our readiness crisis by ensuring that our troops have the resources, training and capabilities needed to face the growing threats of today. Im proud of the provisions included in this bill to reform the Foreign Military sales process, provide funding to address the Critical Infrastructure needs and protect our nations highly sensitive u. S. Military information, information that our adverse areas are actively looking to exploit. F18thorizes 22 additional Super Hornets and funds the b21 radar to deter future aggression. I represent missouri 4th district. This bill funds programs for the b2 spirit and authorizes phase one of a new hospital facility. Since arisk to congress i have been fighting to fight the infrastructure needs, lake city is the source. These plants are in dire need of modernization and this bill authorizes much needed funding. Thanks to the leadership of chairman thornberry, the Armed Services committee increases defense spending. Appreciate the opportunity to talk about the bipartisan passion and i urge my colleagues o support its passage. Mr. Smith im pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. Brown. Mr. Brown let me start by thanking chairman thornberry and Ranking Member smith not only for their leadership but the bipartisan approach to the work of the committee and as a new member of the 115th congress, i find it very refreshing and its no surprise that 50plus years in a row we have passed this. The United States faces various security threats, aggression from north korea and russia and campaigns in iraq. New battlefields in cyber space and outer space. After years of sequestration, there is consensus that Congress Must address modernization changes facing our military. Investments we made in equipping our forces. But increasing Defense Authorizations and appropriations absent a clear National Security strategy will not make our country safer. We need a smart, strategic approach to National Security that provides clear goals and objectives and incorporates in an allgovernment approach. Not only increasing defense spending but ensuring spend in the state department and usaid and nondefense programs that make the world more stable and secure. We owe it to our servicemen and women to provide them the resources to accomplish their Mission Abroad and pursue the american dream. And thats good schools and safe neighborhoods. We cannot do one at the expense of the other. The longterm success of our country depends on that. Mr. Speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry i yield two nutes to the chairman, ms. Stefanik. Ms stefanik today, i rise in strong support of the National Defense authorization act for fiscal year 2018 which increases readiness and those who serve our nation are fully equipped and fully supported. Im proud of the oversight regarding stronger cyber warfare capabilities and enabling our special forces around the globe providing resources to counter rrorism and energizing programs. Ur achievements in Cyber Security carries three broad themes. Includes a bill introduced by myself and Ranking Member nching begin and they are in formed. We bolster International Partnerships for cyber warfare including efforts to Information Warfare and third, the bill continues to build and enhance our u. S. Capabilities and activities. This bill reinforces counterterrorism and Unconventional Warfare by fully resourcing u. S. Special Operation Program and activities and increasing oversight of intelligence activities. I would like to thank mr. Rodgers for including language. And i would like to thank mr. Coffman for including portions of my bill the list of relocation burden. And before i conclude, i would like to thank the chairman as well as my Ranking Member jim lanching vin for his Bipartisan Energy and cooperation on all of these issues. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. With that, i yield back. The chair the gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith how much time is on each side . The chair 9 1 2 minutes. Mr. Smith we are going to reserve. The chair the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry i yield one minute, a valued general from nebraska, mr. Bacon. Mr. Bacon i rise in support of this bill. I served in the military under the past five president s and witnessed the erosion of our combat edge. We out trained our competitors th a two toone flying advantage. And it is unconscionable to send them into combat. But thats where we are at today. I was charged with preparing our forces to prevail over any adverse area. And given the damage by 22 reduction of defense funding while we are at war. This will right the ship. Providing the means to build the readiness and invests in peace through strength. The constitution charges this dy to provide for the common defense. And we meet this obligation with back. 18 ndaa than i yield mr. Smith i continue to reserve. The chair the gentleman from texas. Mr. Thornberry i yield one knight. A member, mr. Mr. Knight i rise in the National Defense authorization act for fiscal year 2018. This is mindful dedication to our soldiers, sailors and airmen and marines. And im speaking on behalf of this legislation. The acquisition reforms will get answered equipment. This bill brings much needed innovation to the tax dollars and commercial businesses engage. It prifertizes oversight of service contracts. His accounts for over 50 of expenditures. And it will help secure a better value spent through forms. Small business strile base is a critical part of procurement and unique ability to strengthen by driving innovation and competition in the marketplace. It is important we create opportunities and strengthen programs and eliminate barriers strengthen our industrial base. Mr. Smith mr. Courtney, you ready to go . I yield three minutes to the gentleman from from connecticut and the Ranking Member on the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces. Mr. Courtney thank you to mr. Smith for yielding and compliments and chairman thornberry and the two of you have collaborated to keep this undertaking on schedule. A trunk indicated schedule and you. Kudo to both of and i rise in strong support of the 2018 ndaa. And i served with chairman whitman who is in his first term. But in our deliberations was the buildup of our navy fleet. In december of last year, the prior navy secretary, who served in the Prior Administration laid out the requirement for increasing the navys fleet from 308 ships to 355. In january of 2015, they got us on a construction path to get us to a larger fleet. And time is of the essence in growing the navy. And that was why so many of us were surprised on may 23 and disappointed when the white house sent over a 308 budget. Im proud to say that on a bipartisan basis we have done much better. We add five additional ships in 2018 for a total of 12 to get us moving toward the larger fleet that Prior Administration and the new administration know we need. One area im particularly proud of is the area of ound undersea forces of our undersea forces. Our panel once again led the way in forging an aggressive but realistic plan to grow our submarine fleet. To achieve this, our bill authorizes multiyear Procurement Authority for 13 virginia class attack submarines for the next five years. Not only would this keep us at the twoyear level that weve been on for the last few years, it would go even further by reaching a threesubmarine build rate in the coming years. The sea power portion of the bill does much, much more to support a range of priorities on the seas and in the skies. Far too many to itemize here today. Im proud of the bipartisan contribution of all of our subcommittee members into the product before the house today. And again to mr. Wittman for his first year as subcommittee chairman, in particular i want to highlight the work of our subcommittee staff in helping us craft a the bill. Im joined by one of my staff, steven, who has been working with us and is going to be moving on to better things. I want to publicly thank him for his outstanding work in terms of helping us get to the place we are here today. In closing i would urge my colleagues to support the Defense Authorization bill and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry im pleased to yield one minute to a valuable member of our committee who continues to serve our nation in the reserves. The gentleman from indiana, mr. Banks. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Banks thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise today to express my strong support for the fiscal year 2018 National Defense authorization act. As the most recently deployed veteran serving in congress, serving in afghanistan, just two years serving in afghanistan just two years ago, i know the National Security challenges facing our country firsthand. While these challenges are not easily solved, this legislation represents a significant step forward. I want to take a moment and specifically thank chairman thornberry for his leadership in a and assistance to myself and other freshmen members of the committee. Working together with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the Armed Services committee has crafted a bill focused on rebuilding and reforming the department of defense. By procuring what we need, fixing what we already have, and by being good stewards of the taxpayer dollars by proposing new contract audit reforms, this bill begins the hard work of getting our department back on the right track. While we cannot control the existential threats facing our nation, we must ensure that those in uniform are ready to address those threats when necessary. Moreover, as this weeks tragic c130 accident that claimed the lives of 16 members reminded all americans mr. Thornberry im pleased to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman. Mr. Banks we know our Service Members place their lives on the line each and every day. From give our troops a well deserved raise to funding our vital Missile Defense programs, i believe that this legislation begins the process of rebuilding and reforming our military so we are ready for whatever comes next. With that, thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith if i may inquire, i believe that the your last speaker. Are you prepared to close at this point . Ok. I yield myself the balance of our time. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Smith what i really want to focus on is the budget problem. Thats really underlying all of this. I think weve heard a lot of good speeches from members talking about what is in this bill. How important it is. How whats in this bill is attempting both to meet our National Security threats and, as importantly, to make sure that we take care of the men and women who serve our military, who fight to protect us. To make sure, first of all, that they and their families are taken care of from a financial standpoint, but also to make sure that they have the equipment and training that they need to be ready to fight the fights that is we ask them to go to. I think thats one of the great challenges. Is whatever it is we decide ought to be our National Security strategy, i think the thing we can all agree on is that we need to make sure that we provide the training, equipment and support so that the men and women who serve in the military are ready for that fight. The worst thing we can do is create a hollow force. Set up an expectation, you need to do all of this, but were only going to train you for that. So if this other stuff comes up, youre not going to be ready. Weve talked about this a lot in our committee, to make sure that we are ready for the fight that comes. Thats where the budget creates a very significant problem. Weve talked a lot about the budget control act. And sequestration. Its pretty clear why we had the budget control act and sequestration. I was here for it. We were days away from not raising the debt ceiling. Basically not meeting our commitments to pay our bills. And there are those who figured that that could be a significant problem. So we made an agreement. We were going to try to get the budget under control, sequestration was put in place, with the expectation that it wouldnt be implemented because we would come to a grand bargain on revenue and spending that would get our deficit under control. Well, we didnt and sequestration kicked in. But as we sit here today, even if we got rid of sequestration, even if we got rid of the budget caps, we are still 20 trillion in debt. Were going to run a 700 billion deficit. And this is projected to go nowhere but up in the years ahead. I dont believe that is sustainable. I dont think we need to balance the budget tomorrow or next year or even in the next five years. But we need to get ourselves on a sustainable path. And we flat refuse to do that. When you look at you dont see a lot of campaigns promising to cut specific programs or promising to raise taxes. I love the fact that if you poll the American People, theres a very clear consensus on what they think we ought to do about this problem. First of all, somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 of them support a bald budget. Now by the way balanced budget. Now, by the way. If you ask them, heres all the places where the government spends money, what would you like to cut . The answer to that question is nothing. I mean, literally nothing. The pew research folks do a poll on this every year. And every single category, a majority of people would rather keep the money the same or increase it as opposed to decrease it. Of course if you ask them what taxes they would like to increase, by and large they dont want to increase taxes. Its interesting, you can, if you can convince people that the taxes in question will not apply to them, for a brief moment they will be supportive of it. But then someone will come along and convince them that at some point it might apply to them and then they oppose it. Our task is to balance the budget without raising taxes or cutting spending. That of course is impossible. So what we have chosen to do is put off that decision for as long as is humanly possible. And that is why we do not have a budget resolution. Because any budget resolution that this body could create would fail on probably multiple fronts of what the public expects. It wouldnt balance the budget. It wouldnt cut it would cut spending they didnt want to cut and it would well, probably wouldnt raise taxes, coming from this majority. But if it did, it wouldnt be popular. We have to start having an honest conversation about the budget. We hear in the Armed Services committee all the time about all the needs, all shortfalls, all the critical things we need to do. And we argue about it and argue about it. But in six years, the republican majority has not put forward a plan to control mandatory spending. They say thats the problem. No plan to do that. Certainly they havent even considered the possibility of increasing revenue. If we are this serious, and we should be, about making sure that we have the funds necessary to provide an adequate National Security, then we should stop cowering from the budget debate. Personally, im all for raising taxes. Because i see the needs that the chairman and everybody else has described. And i am actually prepared to pay for them. So we need to do that. That overarching budget problem is what has put us in this mess. As we talk about this bill, as i said, its 72 billion over the budget caps. And unless we get a vote to lift those budget caps, which i just mentioned is politically unpopular, which is why we havent done it for the full six months that is we have been in session this year, then that 72 billion goes away and the pentagon is back in kay ols. So, this may be a good bill chaos. So this may be a good bill, it may be solid, but it doesnt have the backing the budget. There are some things the department of defense could do. This is why the strategy is so important. Yes, the Obama Administration waited until may of 2010. They didnt have six years of c. R. s and government shutdowns and threatened shutdowns and the changing threat environment that we have. They had a reasonably consistent set of problems. It was a set of problems, but they had the same secretary of defense from the previous administration. They had time to look at that. We need this strategy urgently. Because the big question is, are we spending the money correctly . Is the department of defense spending money in the right way . Do we have a strategy to figure out how we should prioritize . We dont. And with this crushing budget environment, it is absolutely critical that we do. We need to consider the possibility, for instance, that we might be spending some money shouldnt be spending. I will often ask that question of the generals who come over and tell us how short they are on everything. Ill say, where are we spending money in your opinion that we shouldnt be . They never answer the question. And you cannot tell me in a 700 billion budget, in a place as large as the pentagon, that there isnt somebody over there who knows to say, look, we shouldnt be doing this. Just one suggestion. Weve had the debate forever. Weve had a shrinking military. Yet we have maintained the same infrastructure. Weve seen study after study from the air force and others about how much excess capacity they have. And money that could be saved from doing that. But again this year, for, i submit, political reasons, its prohibited. So we need to get a lot smarter about how were going to spend this money and a lot smarter about our budget, if this bill is actually going to become reality. With that i well, im out of time. So i got nothing to yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Thornberry 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 were going to have appropriations to vote on at some point in the coming weeks. I also believe that were going to have the opportunity to vote on dealing with the equestration 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. And 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 missions, even on routine deployments. And the men and women who volunteer to serve our country, to protect us, to secure our freedoms, deserve the very best our country can provide them. Thats the goal of this bill. To support the men and women who serve us, and to further the National Security of the United States. Youve heard from both sides of the aisle many good things that are in this bill. Were going to go through a lot of amendments over the next several days. But at the end of the day the point is, even if the good, the bad and the ugly that gets put in this bill, to sport men and women who support by voting yes. And i hope my to support the men and women who serve by voting yes. And hope my colleagues will do that. The chair the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on Armed Services, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules Committee Print 111523, modified by the amendment printed in part a of the house report, 115212, is adopted. The bill as amended shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the fiveminute rule and shall be considered as read. No further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 115212, and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 431. Each further amendment printed in part b of the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report. May be offered only by a member designated in the report. Shall be considered as read. Shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. Pursuant to the order of the house of today, amendment number 88 may be considered out of sequence. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part b of the report, not earlier disposed of. Amendments shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. T is now in order chairman it is now in order to consider amendment number one. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 115212 offered by mr. Thornberry of texas. The chair the gentleman recognizes the gentleman from from texas. Mr. Thornberry just to say, this is a managers amendment that contains technical and conforming amendments to the bill. I do not know of any controversy and i reserve the balance of my time. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. Five minutes. Mr. Smith this is uncontroversial and should be adopted. And i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. It is now in order tore consider amendment number 2. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Thornberry i have an amendment at the desk. The clerk amendment number 2 printed in house report of offered by mr. Conaway of texas. The chair the gentleman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. Conaway it does saves and conserves taxpayer dollars and it holds the department of defense accountable. Mr. Chairman, we have a in place a vert of agreements to buy biofuels. The army bought some atlanta 0 a a gallon. And the need for conserving resources and prioritizing and having those new contracts makes no sense whatsoever. This amendment will say while sequestration is undergoing and the army and the department of defense, army and defense, will ot enter into existing contracts. We will honor those. Ut as long as we are under sequestration and this tight budget process, these would prevent this from going forward. And this restriction would be lifted and new contracts to be entered into and would have an Accounting Department would have a process in which the cost of the fuels would take into the agencies that are contributing to this fund. There was a 510 million by the department of and the department of agriculture and using the Commodities Credit Corporation to fund this 510 million. We dont know where this money went. We do know they brought jet fuel same a gallon and the time frame and bought it. 25 bucks a gallon, two mill yop llons, that is 51 Million Dollars that were mis prioritized. And americas. This redates the last six years in order to create the Energy Independence given shell drilling. My i ask my colleagues to support the amendment and makes sense and does not affect existing crabts and only for new contracts. It is going to be for it at 28 bucks a gallon and you would expect them to be against it. My amendment is for the taxpayers and i encourage a yes vote and i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition . Mr. Carbajal before i proceed, i wanted to take a quick few econds to recognize. As a freshman member, it has been refreshing to see bipartisan tone and leadership d i recognize them for those qualities and skills. With the department of defense struggling to reign in spending while keeping our military strong and protected, it is amendments like mr. Conaway that are impeding redukes that come ith the publicprivate partnership. This amendment limits ompetition between alternative and will pay more by prohibiting. Hat is not only inefficient. The department of defense is the largest in the world. Nd as and option to reduce regulatory burdenen. His increases costs for d. O. D. Procurement and and the biofuel field. A billion dollar industry. Is amendment if passed is to impede military operations where t may be the only option available. And a waiver l to should be included for National Security matters. Military leadersville told members time and time again about the direct threat that Climate Change particularly sea level wise possesses to our norfolk and abroad. Nd that specifically acknowledges this threat. The impact of Climate Change and prepare an effective strategy to address its feats. Fuels known that fossil climate. To the it is irresponsible to ignore this reality and not consider more Clean Energy Sources for our military. And timely, i would like to point out that this amendment is completely unnecessary. It prohibits them from purchasing fuel unless it is cost competitive with traditional fuel. I urge my colleagues to oppose his amendment. R. Speaker, i reserve my time. Mr. Smith the gentleman is incorrect mr. Conaway this gentleman is incregget that will affect. The small amounts of the fuel that are expected to be expected are two million gallons at 28 bucks a gallon and so any number up to some multi million gallon amount could be hidden. E dont have a good Accounting Practice to understand what these costs are and asking to zice this process. In order to hide from the program is the issue, the department of defense buys the fuel and it is president on the department on the books and records. This is straightforward stuff. Ou cant argue to and spend an product that on a can be bought. I would argue there is no where we and that makes that argue makes no sense. That is some future issue. And giving the opportunity to provide fossil fuels and their direct mission of fighting and trying to support this issue makes no support. Vote for this amendment. Does not affect the existing contracts and benefits the members of the service and put a hiatus while we are under sequestration. I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Carbajal i will point out that those figures are correct as stated by my colleague. 2. 03 the d. O. D. Paid or 77,660 gallons of fuel at a 10 blend. I wanted to correct the record cause those are the accurate figures. Mr. Speaker, i yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the amendment is agreed to. Mr. Carbajal mr. Speaker, i request a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. It is now in order to consider mendment number 3. It is now in order tore consider amendment number 4. For what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition . Mr. Polis i have an amendment at the desk. The clerk printed in house report offered by mr. Pole is of cole. The chair the gentleman from com, mr. Pole is and a member opposed will each control 20 minutes. Mr. Polis at a time in which we need to balance our budget and prevent a legacy of debt being left for the next generation we need to ask ourselves not only should we blast through the budget cap shouldnt we protect our fiscal security as a nation which is a critical part of our National Security by spending beyond our means. Are be heap holden to other nations. D as structured, the ndaa is fiscally irresponsible. And outside of the context, its hard to talk about the budget control act by 72. 5 billion and ase spending and broader discussion. But my amendment would give authority to the president of the United States and secretary of and reduce the amount of money by 1 . It ex cludes personnel by being included. The eads us well above spendings levels that i actually support. If i had my way, i would keep those numbers. But 1 is a very reasonable compromise for those of us who believe that we need to have fiscal responsibility as we head into the budget negotiation. There is many overfunded accounts. A 1 reduction in that context is extremely reasonable. 6. 2 billion out of this bill. And there are many ways to find excess monies in the bill that would leave up to the military. We can consider numerous programs. And the bill authorizes the levels that exceed the president s request in and the militarys request. During the bills markup to educe the number of lit oral ships, we are blocking the navy from making a reasonable decision. And there are a dozen more and the president requested. We arent going to cut. Them in hem have found the budget list. In a perfect world. We could have included all those items. But there is a military budget and cant be convinced that somehow we can sustain this level of spending we cant. I think hopefully thats the least that democrats and republicans in congress can come together around as a simple first step. My amendment is a very small first step. And we dont have to choose between protecting the homeland and fiscal restraint. When congress is imposing spending that the military itself doesnt even want, heres a vehicle to the military the ability to rein in some of that unnecessary spending that reduces our National Security rather than improves it. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment and take this modest step toward fiscal responsibility and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from colorado reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, i claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, im pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished chair of the subcommittee on tactical air and land as it forces. Michael turner thank you, mr. Chairman. This amendment mr. Turner thank you, mr. Chairman. This amendment is not about fiscal security. Its arbitrary. Its arbitrary cuts without any reference whatsoever to our security risks, without any assessments to our needs of our military, and it is incorrectly stated that were giving things to our military that they do not want. In fact, they needed more. Theres a whole category called unfunded requirements that they put before the house Armed Services committee. I want to say that again, unfunded requirements. Unfunded wishes, unfunded needs. Unfunded requirements. Theyre based on the mission that weve assigned the military and their inability to do so as a result of that gap and many of which we were unable to fund in this bill. We can take a tour around the world and we know the risks that we are facing. China, russia, north korea, syria, iraq, afghanistan, libya, isis, terrorism. These are not issues that you take up lightly. And then say we can undertake an arbitrary cut. By the way, this is not if this was really about fiscal security, it would be a 1 cut across all spending. But its only going to apply to military. This doesnt apply to the i. R. S. , doesnt apply to the e. P. A. This is only saying that the military should be cut as a result of some concept of fiscal savings. But the savings that weve taken have damaged our military already. The air force vice chief of staff testified in february of this month, quote, we have become one of the smallest, oldest equipped and least ready forces across the full spectrum of operations in our service history. The entire history of the air force. In 1991 we went to desert storm, our air force was 500,000 people. And 134 fighter squadrons. Today we find ourselves at 317 total 317 in our active force with 55 fighter squadrons. The navy is the same. Its the smallest since world war ii. Deployments continue to increase and training and maintenance periods have been shortened, eliminated or deferred. The number of marine corps infantry battalions hand been reduced by four since 2010, going from 28 to 24. Admiral moore and the vice chief of Naval Operations has also indicated the navy aircraft, 60 are unable to operate. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, i yield 30 more seconds to the gentleman. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Turner the end of this amendment incorrectly states there should be no cuts to military personnel and it incorrectly states that because the rest of the cuts actually apply to our military personnel. It applies to what we ask them to do and what we give them to do the job. Our military should be honored. It should not be faced with additional cuts. We should honor whats in this bill, we should satisfy their requirements. And we should support our men and women in uniform. I yield back. The chair the gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from colorado is recognized. Mr. Polis the gentleman asked, why arent there cuts for other agencies. Thats not the bill we have before us. We have the National Defense authorization bill before us. I have supported similar cuts in various agencies, when weve had those Appropriations Bills on the floor. This is the billing biggest bill for the on the authorization side. Then of course the companion, appropriations bill. This is over 40 of our discretionary expenditures. The authorization for 40 of our discretionary expenditures are in this bill. So a 1 cut is very meaningful in this bill. That doesnt mean that 1 cuts in other areas arent meaningful too. They are. There is no single other area that is as important fiscally as this area. And i think it would set a positive tone for reining in out of control spending. There are many accounts that are funded at levels above president trumps request. So if the gentleman is saying somehow that this cut would leave anybody unprepared, hes saying that president trumps budget would leave the military unprepared or leave people poorly equipped. The truth is, theres many of us who support vastly lower spending levels and believe that those are sufficient for National Defense. Thats not even what this amendment does. It simply reduces spending just over 6 billion, 6. 2 billion, still blasts through the budget cap. Has indicatedmber that he supports this bill. And i deeply respect his expertise and military preparedness. I encourage my colleagues to unanimously adopt my amendment. And i yield back the balance of my time. Has indicated that he the chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, im pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from georgia. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hice thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise in electronic opposition to this amendment. As we all know, over the past eight years, the world certainly has become a more dangerous place. And we face a variety of threats that, quite frankly, were not keeping pace with. We simply cannot continue a pattern of underfunding our military. Yes, we must keep our financial house in order. But we absolutely cannot afford to allow the quality of our National Defense to decline by further Defense Budget cuts. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back. The chair the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry i yield myself the balance of the time. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, i oppose this amendment. Im concerned about a growing notion that we can thank Service Members 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 dont fly, ships that cant 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 thats whats happened in recent years. Mr. Chairman, defense spending this year is still 18 below what it was in 2010. So whats 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 thats 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. So, 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. The chair the gentleman yields . Mr. Thornberry i yield. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Mr. Polis mr. Chairman, on that i request mr. Chairman, on that i request a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentleman from olorado will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in art b of house report 115212. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition . Ms. Jayapal i rise as the designee for the gentleman from wisconsin, and i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 115212 offered by ms. Jayapal of washington. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentlewoman from washington, ms. Jayapal, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. Ms. Jayapal thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the reality is that our Economic Security is part and parcel of our National Security. And so it is in line with these values today that we introduce amendment 334 to the National Defense authorization act, which states a sense of congress thatny appropriated increase to the that any appropriated increase to the combined National Defense budget and the overseas contingencies operation budget are matched dollar for dollar by nondefense Discretionary Spending increases. For years now these spending increases have occurred concurrently and equally, keeping important parity between defense and nondefense Discretionary Spending. Because genuine National Security depends on the health, vibrancy and safety of our communitieses, we must ensure that this spending communities, we must ensure that this spending parity continues and that Democratic Party principle continues on into f. Y. 2018. This includes a host of frunds funds that are crucial to the American People. From education to research to Veterans Health care, to transportation, and even Homeland Security, n. D. D. Funding is see absolutely essential to moving our country forward. Mr. Chairman, as vice Ranking Member of the budget committee, i echo the comments made earlier by our Ranking Member, mr. Smith, about the dysfunction that we have as we have yet to consider an f. Y. 2018 budget resolution. And we have only 23 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins. The effort to push through 696 billion in defense spending will trigger sequestration under the budget control act, and our communities will pay the price in cuts to vital programs. This is senseless brinksmanship and we must reject it. Sequestration would further hinder job creation and stall 2 mic growth, by cutting trillion in Discretionary Spending for infrastructure that makes our communities thrive, roads, bridges, transit, railroad systems, broadband, ports, airport, waterways, schools and safe, clean water systems. It will erode our investments in education, worker training, public health, and Community Development that strengthen the middle class and working families, and these shortfalls, mr. Chairman, will hurt the American People and our economy and make us less secure as a nation. Budgetary gimmicks dont make our nation safer either and thats why in the peoples budget, which we introduced in the progressive caucus, the overseas Contingency Operations budget is actually zeroed out, as it is essentially a zero accountability slush fund used to avoid the restrictions imposed by the budget control act. Some have pointed out that 10 billion of the 631. 5 billion for the military base budget needs is actually labeled o. C. O. Purely as a technicality to evade the budget control act caps. This is in addition to the clearly marked 65 billion of o. C. O. Funds. By including o. C. O. Funding one to one match in our amendment, were sending a message that we will not accept these efforts to undermine the best interests of our country and its people. Increasing opaque Funding Sources comes at the expense of our nations infrastructure programs, education, and all the other things that i mentioned earlier. So to the extent that congress provides relief from the postsequestration funding levels for our military, responsible members of this body should be united in insisting that the same relief would apply to domestic disary spending. This Discretionary Spending. For these reasons, and to support the continuation of this important principle, we urge support of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman, to oppose the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Thornberry i yield myself two minutes. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Thornberry mr. Chairman in some ways i think this may be one of the most important debates we have in the next three 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 exactly same 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 and yet they got to not only worry about north korea up on the d. M. Z. , theyve not only go got got to worry about isis in syria, theyve got to worry about whether we will pass some Domestic Program if were going to adequately provide for them. The constitution says its Congress Responsibility to provide for the military, without condition this sort of approach saying well 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 and i reserve the balance of the time. The chair the gentleman reserves. Ms. Jayapal how much time do i have remaining . The chair 2 1 2 minutes. Ms. Jayapal i yield to the gentleman from washington. Mr. Smith this isnt conditional money. The money that we are providing for the Armed Services at this point, the extra money is conditioned on cutting it from Everything Else. As we saw in president trumps budget. 54 billion plus up for the defense, 54 billion taken away from the domestic agenda. It is beyond insulting to say if you support any sort of domestic spending you dont care about the troops that being concerned about transportation infrastructure, which by the way, bridges have collapsed and killed people in this country, because of the problems with our transportation infrastructure, the department of Homeland Security is part of nondefense Discretionary Spending. Does it not protect us . We heard from the president it does. The state Department Also part of nondefense Discretionary Spending. We heard from the secretary of defense it saves lives. For our committee, the Armed Services committee, to say, were all that matters and to hell with anything else, if you care at all about the domestic ageneral dark you dont care about the troops, thats an incredibly disingenuous argument. Ms. Jayapal i reserve. The chair the gentleman from texas. Mr. Thornberry i think all of us care about domestic spending programs, and im not for the cuts proposed by the administration. Thats what we are here to do and decide. What i am opposed for is the sense of congress that every dollar we increase in defense has to be matched by an increased dollar on domestic side. That makes it conditional. That makes it tied to a domestic political agenda on the e. P. A. , the i. R. S. , education, transportation, whatever it is, my point is, all of those things need to stand on their own merits and 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 merit. 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. The chair the gentlelady from washington is recognized. Ms. Jayapal mr. Chairman, i have to say this is conditional because we still dont have a budget resolution. In the absence of a budget resolution, the reality is, were looking at a budget that could potentially raise 676 billion for defense but at the expense of all the other programs that weve mentioned. And the reality is that families in the Armed Services also care about education, about health care, about roads, about Everything Else that is funded in domestic spending. So we have to make sure that these two things are interconnected and yes, weve got to make sure that the state department is funded and that we continue to push for a budget that keeps parity between defense and nondefense discretionary. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. The chair the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Thornberry im pleased to yield the remaining two minutes to a valuable member of the committee, dr. Desjarlais. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Desjarlais no one can deny we have a readiness issue and this comes at a time when were facing unprecedented threats all over the tpwhrobe. Our constitution makes it clear that our top priority and duty is to provide for the common defense. In world war ii, americans willingly rationed whatever was necessary to support the war effort and our troops. It would have been unthinkable, unimaginable, for someone to suggest our military could not have the resources necessary to defeat our enemies unless we had equal spending for Everything Else. Simply put we would have lost the war and Everything Else. We cannot lose sight or take for granted our nations security. Without it, the rest of the budget doesnt matter so much. I fear america has lost its way if we live in a culture that suggests we cant support our most vie call obligation without equal spending in other measures. I oppose this amendment that adds unnecessarily to our debt and further threaten ours ability to keep the nation safe in the many threats we face. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Ms. Jayapal mr. Chairman, can i have a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington will e postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 115212. For what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . Mr. Nadler i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will dez eig nate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 6 printed in house report 115212, offered by mr. Nadler of new york. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, and a member opposed will control five minute. The chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Nadler mr. Speaker, my amendment would strike section 1022 of the bill that prohibits the transfer or release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, cuba, to the United States. We are currently imprisons 41 people at guantanamo. 26 of whom are being detained indefinitely without charge or trial work no proceedings, no hearings, no opportunity to plead their case, essentially forever. Beyond existing as an affront to fundamental American Values, guantanamo is a dangerous, counterproductive relic of the past. National Security Experts and our own military commanders agree that guantanamo harm ours National Security by serving as a recruiting tool for terrorists and damaging our relationships with allies. Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult to justify the annual cost of holding each guantanamo detainee, which has now climbed to an incredible 10 million a year per detainee. Guantanamo is now the most expensive prison on earth, costing u. S. Taxpayers approximately 445 million per year. This is especially december appointing when you consider that each prisoner in a federal maximum security penitentiary costs only 7 ,000 a year. Not only does our prerefusal to close quan taun moe diminish our legal and ethical reputation throughout the world, it costs american citizens astronomical sums of money for no purpose. We have made excellent progress in reducing the number of prisoners and should continue to 35 were condition firmed to return to the battlefield. In the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration struck diplomatic deals to repatriate large batches of prisoners to saudi arabia and afghanistan in bulk and many recidivists came in those batches. The Obama Administration had an individualized review process through six agencies to determine whether or not to recommend transfering a detainee. T also developed programs with receiving countries to ease their reentry into those societies. America was still reeling from the 9 11 attacks and the war in afghanistan had only just begun. 15 years later, it is clear that the war on terrorism has dragged on for too long as we have expanded our involvement in costly clashes in yemen, somalia, and syria. In doing so we have embroiled ourselveses in needless endless conflict without a Clear Strategy for exit or success. Repeal the use of force Shows Congress is seing that the blank check for war must be reevaluated. Similarly as we consider the aumf, i look forward to closing the guantanamo prison, reevaluate our approach to these detainees and close another dark and sad chapter that has damaged our national honor. Quan gahn moes continued operation provides a momentous challenge to the founding principle os they have United States, that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law and certainly may not be deprived of liberty indefinitely without due process of law. It becomes increasingly difficult for our nation to claim the moral and ethical high ground. We must close the facility at guantanamo now and this amendment will help us achee that goal. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition . I claim time in opposition to the nadler amendment. The nadler amendment would allow detainees currently housed at gitmo to be transferred to the United States. As in previous conflicts its appropriate and lawful to hold detainees that we engage in our armed conflicts. Guantanamo is the safest and most appropriate location to house these detainees. Members can visit there, its secure and relatively distant if the United States. Moving to the u. S. Put ours homeland and citizens at risk. Our enemies have, when able, attacked and on occasion freed detainees even committing suicide to do it. Ive seen the attempts. I served in iraq at a detention facility. As far as fwauntaun moe being a recruitment tool, it might just be a recruitment tool. And heres why. If youre caught trying to kill americans and committing acts of terrorism you get to go to a caribbean island that provides humane conditioners in detainees. Go visit there, youll see that mr. Wenstrup they have appropriate access to health care this esame health care our troops get. They have recreational activities, they have cultural and religious materials. More important than anything else, our troops and the detainees they hold there are all safer in cuba. Its very difficult to sneak up and attack Guantanamo Bay. The recent terrorist attacks in europe should remind us all that there are that there is significant risk that we face significant risk in this world. Yes, we wish the war on terror was over but guess what, its not this would only increase the risk right here in our own backyard. Congress has passed and the president has signed into law restrictions on guantanamo detainee transfers to the u. S. Every year since fiscal year 2010. To house these terrorists, these enemies of freedom, on our own land is dangerous and i ask for your support in defeating this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. Mr. Nadler how much time do i have . The chair a quarter minute. Mr. Nadler i yield myself 15 seconds and ill simply observe that this amendment prohibits the president from transferring prisoners. Do you really think that donald trump, the current president , needs that prohibition, that he would transfer prisoners to maximum Security Prisons in the United States if it werent safe to do so . I yield back. I reserve, rather. The chair the gentleman reserves. Mr. Wenstrup i yield one minute to my friend and colleague the gentleman from nebraska, mr. Bacon. The chair the gentleman is recognized. I can attest unequivocally based on firsthand knowledge that this latest attempt to transfer detainees is strategically unwise and i believe morally wrong. None of the argues in favor of transferring these prison hers prisoners are defensible militarily or financially. Mr. Bacon these prisoners were captured on the battlefield. Theres no hard evidence to support the argument that guantanamo is a recruiting tool and its naive to believe that closing it will change the hearts and minds of our enemies. We could disarm and renounce every interest we have and they would invent a reason to attack us. Many of these prisoners are the worst of the worst yet they are treated better than many of oursen one veterans. And heres the key point. Prisoners released from guantanamo have killed americans in past and if given a chance would do so again. A fact openly conceded by officials in the Obama Administration itself. We do not want the blood of americans on the hands of those in custody. The chair the gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler thank you, mr. Speaker. It cost the american taxpayer 10 million a year per detainee to keep a detainee in guantanamo. To keep the same detainee in a maximum security penitentiary in the United States would cost 7 ,000. Thats a ridiculous waste of our military budget. Nobody has ever escaped from a federal maximum security prison. Transferring these prisoners to maximum Security Prisons in the United States would pose no danger to anybody. And yes, some of these prisoners may be the worst of the worst. Many are not. They were not all caught in the battlefield. Some were sold for bounties by people in different tribes or groups in afghanistan. Some were not captured on battlefields at all. Some are innocent. Some are not. But to keep them in guantanamo for 10 million each per year with no possibility of getting out is an affront to our values, its an affront to our liberty, its an affront to our military budget and our pocketbooks and frankly it is foolish. I yield back. The chair the gentleman from hio mr. Smith i yield to the gentlelady from new york. I rise in opposition that strikes language to transferor release Guantanamo Bay detain eys. Combit mow holds the most and they errorists, are killing america cabs at home and abroad and response i will for killing our men and women in uniform. And puts our National Security at risk and hippeders or National Security abilities. We are at a war and it is the responsibility of congress to do everything in our power to provide the resources to win that war and transferring the detainees. I urge my colleagues to oppose his amendment. The chair how much time is remaining . I yield one minute to mr. Byrne. Mr. Byrne i oppose the gentlemans amendment. This. Ated and and it is important to remember that most of the 41 maining prisoners are very dangerous. The language is to keep our allies safe. And keep our terrorists from returning to the battlefield. Some of the them have fought against the United States. We ask them to put their lives on the line. W can we ask them to do that we are asking releasing. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. And i yield back. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. I ask for a recorded vote. The chair further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 7. For what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . The clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Nadler of new york. The chair the gentleman from new york will each control five minutes. Mr. Nadler i will not take five minutes. Of the ll strike 52 bill. The provision is designed to urther delay the delainees out of guantanamo. The arguments for this amendment amendment. Ance the that amendment and this amendment pribts the yous of funds. Use rovision proibts the of funds for the United States transferees. And i want to mention, yes, some of those zainees will be the worst of the worst, they are people who are caught up for bounty situations and giving a bounty situation where someone was a combat had been in come boat. We now know mistakes were made. And others, can stay in the United States. It is a question we shouldnt be ending 10 million to hold them in secure facilities. And she said we are Holding People in guantanamo, because if we transfer them to the United States, they enjoy the Constitutional Rights and that we dont want to do. But guantanamo was built for that purpose, because it was sthout by the Bush Administration that people held held outside of the United States would not enjoy Constitutional Rights and the writ of habeas corpus. And the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay are having the same rights. There is no difference on that whatsoever and what it comes down to is and look up the Supreme Court decisions and it is a prejudice against holding eople here against people will escape from maximum prince, and we cant hold terrorists here. But nobody is talking about releasing frirts. And all kinds of people in maximum people here in the United States and there are two hings, bring them to the maximum security and it removes a recuting tool and within nstitutional rights, and opposed to and we are holding some people without any hearing, without any due processesly forever. We have held people. We dont claim these people are prisoners of war. We are holding they them. And holding them with though claim with any claim of due process and no finding that they have, in fact, a terrorist and that is all against American Values and i move the amendment nd i reserves. I rise claim to mrs. Hartzler this allows utilities in the u. S. And i urge my colleagues. We are at war for terrorism and the law at war affirms that they can be held off the battlefield. Those republican and democrats have rejected bringing terrorists to the United States. To uld be a negligent act bring the mastermind of 9 11 to. S. Soil to be housed in our neighborhoods. The gentleman said they are not he worst womplet of worst. E only have 1 left and they the the worst of the worst. You might even claim which is caught up and arrest. That is falls. I have seen the threats facing our country and the procedures crared out at that facility. Dollars our defense fall hen we have adequate silts where they have been treated humane. And it is away from our loved ones. I urge my colleagues to vote no. The chair the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from new york reserves. Mrs. Hartzler i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. Yoho. In oho and you will hear favor of the moment. Is a uld be held and it recruiting tool for terrorists. The number one task of the government is to provide for the common defense. Americans are safer. Gitmoes is the safest location to hold detainees and hold detainees until they are defeated. Ncluding detainees they cannot comingled and separate facilities. Idence of the use is subjective. And they will continue to attack. Frirts will will invent any excuse to attract. And i will not support this. The chair the gentlelady reserves. Mrs. Hartzler i yield one minute the gentleman from mississippi, mr. Kelly. Kelly i thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition. I traveled toll guantanamo Guantanamo Bay to see the important work that our men and women are doing. As representatives of the people, we are doing to provide a common defense. According to the march, 2016 National Intelligence report, are suspected are engaged in insurgent activity. The worst of the worst including k. S. M. These people do not happen to be housed on u. S. Soil. They liven better than both of my tours. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. Mrs. Hartzler i yield one minute to my friend from South Carolina, mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson thank you for for your leadership. I visited guantanamo Guantanamo Bay and the detainees are the worst of the worst. Massed are trained murderers and killing americans. We have seen they have put guantanamo guantanamo puts American Families at risk. E director havent was 160 detainees have killed American Families. Africa, ia and north the deer terrence of ins carnings. Ject my colleagues to re this amendment. Mrs. Hartzler im prepared to close. The chair one minute. First of all, no one is proposing to release this people. Take that red herring off the table. I visited guantanamo guantanamo and these prisoners are the the worst of the worst. And as again, they have the same Constitutional Rights there as here. So you arent changing anything. And bringing them to maximum security and it may cost some spending money, would free up the military budget. There is no rational reason for keeping these people in a military base that i a measuring rod for our enemies abroad. I yield back. Mrs. Hartzler how much time do i have . Mrs. Hartzler vote know on this on amendment. To detain wise terrorists where we have adequate facilities that are doing a great job. We need to keep the terrorists away from our communities and i urge my colleagues to reject. Is amendment and vote know the chair those opposed, no. Thained. The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. It is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report 115212. For what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition . The clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report 115212 offered by mr. Blumenauer of oregon. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman from oregon, mr. Blumenauer, and a member posed will each control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. Mr. Blumenauer thank you. My amendment deletes language in this bill that would mandate a program of record green lighting this proposal for road mobile ground launch cruise missiles with ranges that if tested or deployed would violate United States obligations under the intermediate range Nuclear Forces treaty. For more than four decades, the United States and russia have worked through Bilateral Agreements to reduce their Nuclear Weapons stockpiles, saving money and making the world safer. President S Ronald Reagan and george h. W. Bush were at the forefront of this effort with the start one with the start one and start two treaties. Theres a long precedent of negotiating these treaties in a bipartisan fashion because these leaders knew that a world with less of these weapons meant a safer world for all of us. Yet over the last several years, our Nuclear Weapons proliferation has continued on auto pilot. Right now were on track to pend 1. 2 trillion on unneeded Nuclear Weapons. In fact, the pentagon has concluded that already United States security needs could be met with one third fewer strategic war heads deployed than new start limits of 1,550. We can and should safely right size the arsenal as envisioned by Ronald Reagan and the first president bush. Thats why these treaties are so important. They hold us and our adversaries accountable. We see some confusing signals from the administration, at times appearing to favor nuclear escalation, while at the same time being deeply concerned about managing costs. Trump has demonstrated a lack of understanding of these treaty bus even his administration is fearful that the language undermining the treaty in this bill, quote, unhelpfully ties them to a specific missile system. Congress should be playing a lead role in getting us back on track with smarter defense spending, not working to abandon this Nuclear Nonproliferation legacy that Ronald Reagan and bush senior fought so hard for. We cant simply fund every Weapons Program on the list. While fulfilling other critical obligations like providing for our military personnel, ensuring we have adequate cybersecurity protections, strengthening our command and control infrastructure, not to mention our nondefense Department Programs like foreign assistance and diplomacy. We have a poor track record when it comes to carefully managing and budgeting implementation of our Weapons Programs. The house continues this poor record now. Why would we establish a program of record for something that our military, our diplomats, our and our nato ally havent asked for . Rather than rushing to adopt this program and abandoning a Key International treaty in the process, lets think this through. Lets do our homework to make sure our ally the department of defense, and state are all on the same page and develop a coherent approach to bring russia back into compliance rather than throw money at yet another unnecessary Weapons Program and undercut that regime. This take ours eye off the ball and could have unintended and i think in some instances destating consequences. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment for a smarter defense spending and the protection of a land mark treaty that is part of the legacy of Ronald Reagan and george h. W. Bush. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina eek recognition . Im sorry. I claim time in opposition. The chair my apologies. I want to thank mr. Blumenauer for his amendment and although i urge its defeat and start by pointing autothough ba Ma Administration and Trump Administration said russia is in violation of the treaty and neither indicated any belief russia will come back in compliance. Im troubled by the fact that the gentleman would want to provide a stree vito on a system that hasnt been developed, much less deployed. The gentleman is worried about deployment of a system we dont have developed yet. Hopefully it wont be deploy when it is completed. Thats function of whether russia comes back into compliance. General silva, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, testified before the house in march, quote, they do not intend to return to compliance absent pressure from the International Community and the United States as a cosigner of that same agreement. Theres no trajectory in what they are doing that would indicate otherwise, close quote. The development of this system that were talking about here today is that very pressure that the general was referencing. Mr. Rogers this development by the russians this kind of development got the russians to the table on i. N. F. Treaty anyway. But they violated the treaty and that doesnt just matter to europe. It matters to asia which is completely ignored by the gentlemans amendment and asia matters on i. N. F. Why . Because 95 of chinas missiles are in i. N. F. Range. The commander of pacomm testified that he has requirements for interimmediate mice intermediate range isles missiles. We didnt conjure the idea of a ground launch cruise ms. Missile out of thin air. The u. S. Army reported that interdeucing intermediate range ground launch missile into the domain provides military value across the range of the joint military. And provides a landbased counter to our adversary antiaccess aerial denial capabilities. This report was required by the house last year as part of our multiyear oversight on how to respond to russias violations of the i. N. F. Treaty, which the Prior Administration did nothing to challenge. I appreciate the gentlemans interest, i will gladly work with him on ways to counter russias violations of the treaty but i must urge defeat of his well intentioned but ill conceived amendment. I urge a vote no on the blumenauer amendment and reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from oregon is recognized. Mr. Blumenauer may i inquire as to the time i have remaining. The chair one minute remaining. Mr. Blumenauer the question is how to get russia into compliance. Walking away from ourable gations . I think not. The amendment allows going ahead if the department of defense certifies to congress that its completed a new Nuclear Posture review to make sure this program fits in the overall strategy. That it certifies that it prefer this is program to ensure that natos ofrle deterrence and defense posture remains credible. That the department of defense certified it prefer this is missile for maintaining strategic stability. That state certifies the Record Program of record is necessary to help verifyably return russia to compliance. That at least one nato member state has proven it is serious about hosting the missile an state certifies that the full atlantic counsel has Tissue Council endorses deployment of the missile. Those are the conditions in the amendment. I think they are reasonable conditions the gentleman should not object to if he truly believes in the merit of his argument, theres no reason that that cannot be complied with. If not, it should not proceed. The chair the gentleman from alabama is recognized. Mr. Rogers i want to remind the gentleman that nobody has indicated that russia has any intention, they see no signs that russia has any intention of coming back into compliance. I think this is poorly thought out. We need to go forward and not be giving vetos to other people about what Weapons Systems we can start developing. With that, i yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the noes have it. Mr. Blumenauer i respectfully request a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in part b of the house report 115212. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition . Mr. Wilson mr. Chairman, i seek the right to speak on the amendment. The chair does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk . Mr. Wilson the amendment is at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 115212 offered by mr. Wilson of South Carolina. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman from South Carolina, mr. Wilson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. Che chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. Wilson plmp, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the amendment to restrict the funding from the comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization while still providing funds for the International Monitoring system. The purpose is simple. Congress never ratified the comp rehence i Nuclear Test Ban treaty. It is irresponsible to the taxpayer and contradictory of the United States to financially support an organization that the United States has never officially joined or contribute funds for treaty that was never enacted. The amendment clearly continues to fund the international monoton Monitoring System to improve our global and Nuclear Detection capability and returns us to the long standing responsible policies in from president george w. Bushs administration. This amendment makes it clear, protecting American Families is the job of congress. Not an unaccountable International Body. As we see a rise in threats around the world, our Nuclear Deterrence capability is crucial to promote our ability to preserve peace. It is also important that the United States does not acquire require adherence to this treaty in order to continue our selfimposed moratorium on testing Nuclear Weapons of any size or of any kind. However, as we live in the world of increasing threats, we should not bind the United States to an agreement that other Nuclear Powers like china and russia do not adhere to. The comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty has never been enacted so there is no change in policy or outcome by supporting this amendment. Just a saving of taxpayers dollars. Therefore i urge passage of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized. I yield myself such time as i may consume. As the only physicist in the u. S. Congress, i feel a special responsibility to speak out on the importance of strengthening our Global Nuclear security architecture. At a time when its more important than ever for the security of the United States to reenforce International Norms against Nuclear Testing, we are here debating an amendment that would restrict the ability of a Key International institution to monitor knew three weapons and in fact is designed to undercut prospects for either eventual ratification or even continued adherence to the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission is tasked with establishing a verification regime to monitor compliance with the comprehensive ban on Nuclear Explosive testing. If enacted this amendment would send the wrong signal to the world, deliberatery risk deliberately risking an opening for the restriction of nuclear test big many nations on earth which would be a National Security disaster for the United States. During the debate on the iran nuclear agreement, i received marne dozen classified briefings, many of them individual classified briefings by our weapons experts. Who supported the negotiating team. And at that time i spent a lot of time putting myself in the place of a terrorist or proliferating nation. And i came to understand the overwhelming technical advantage that the United States possesses today over both other Nuclear States and any potential proliferation state because we conducted more than 1,000 Nuclear Tests from 1945 to 1992, more than all other countries on earth combined. Many of those tests were extensively instrumented and provided us with the ability to accurately computer model and evaluate the performance of Nuclear Weapons without the risk to safety and to the environment. And this is why no official of the department of energy, edepartment of defense, or any of our Nuclear Laboratories have ever called for a resumption of Nuclear Testing or an unsigning or depp rah case of the ctbt because the moment other nations begin or resume testing we lose that crucial advantage. Our republican colleagues ant to obtain intellectual property. Although under this amendment, the direct funding for the funding system, it is difficult to imagine that u. S. Technical support for the would not adversely affect to maintain and operate any nuclear system. It undermines the u. S. To not conduct. If the United States declares selfexempt, other countries are likely to do the same. What the amendment i implies, it does not impose any new obligations on the United States. Nothing is mandatory in the u. N. Resolution. But repudiating to trigger a bad faith and reduce leverage that ensures that other countries do not test Nuclear Weapons. We should not signal any intention that it should corp. Return to a hostile environment. But gives away our position as a count that i that seeks peace and prosperity. We have an opportunity to turn into concrete operation and secure the safety of future generations. We must acknowledge that the it locks in an advantage for the United States, one would that would be a huge must take. And the first time it came up in you George Schulz said could say that a senator might be right to vote depens it when it was put forward. Why . Because things have changed. What he meant by that, and the detection system maintained by the United States and the world communities works as well. The u. S. Support for the Commission Remains essential. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the wilson amendment. The chair the gentleman from outh carolina is recognized. Mr. Wilson i yield two minutes to the chairman, South Carolina. This is a an amendment that would help us in a mall but mengful way. The u. S. Signed it but the enate vetoed voted begins that in that 1999. The u. S. Has abided by to refrain from tests. Russia and china have not. They continue to continue Nuclear Tests that the u. S. Does not. T. T. In two reasons, the c. B. Does not define what it bans. Other e keep a policy, Nuclear Policies do not. Y do we continue to fund the organization. His funds the system which provides us some benefits. And and that is included in the budget request for the state department. Lets set this priority and reinforce the Obama Administration that it is not legally binding on the United States. And i yield back to the gentleman from carolina. Mr. Wilson this is clearly an amendment which is in coordination with senator cotton that clearly continues the funding of the system to improve our detection capability and returns us to the long standing policies from president bushs administration. It protects American Families and provides that the job of unaccountable International Body and we see our Nuclear Deterrence, it is to preserve peace. I urge the approval of the amount. And i yield. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. Those in favor say aye. Thoifer. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. It is in order toll consider amendment number 10. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . I have an amendment at the detching. The clerk amendment number 10 printed in house report offered by mr. Aguilar of california. The chair the gentleman from frrl california and a member opposed will each control five minutes. Mr. Aguilar for decades our nations Nuclear Weapons have provided us with Nuclear Deterrence. These ften said, Delivery Systems are safe and the age of our forces are a concern. Ur bomber i fleet contains bombers continueding to fly efforts. Ernization they have been extended to 4 years with the end of the life pan approach in 027. And with the actions of north korea, an increase in activities taking place, a Credible Nuclear Deterrent is vital. But over the past few years there is debate how much this will cost. Over the next 0 years, not only ll our bottomers and submarines will have to be replaced, a program for our Nuclear Bombs and warheads will be taking place. The Congressional Budget Office has a projected cost, however it only covers 10 physician calt years. 10year frame does not incrude the late 20s and 30s where costs will increase. My amendment would modify 15 of 164 of f. Y. Nuclear weapons to make the time frame 30 years instead of 30 years. I brought this issue last up. And earlier this year, Ranking Member smith and Ranking Member visclosky expressed an interest in the costs associated with the years. In the next 30 the estimate which is due to be releaguesed which will put costs at the. Trillion. There is little evidence that he demands of our conventional forces will decretion. We have to have proper accounting if we are tore adequately plan for nuclear investments. Now some of my col ocean will say the 30year cost estimate isnt worth it. And to obtain a realistic estimate. But that is nt the case. Why do we have a f. Y. 2017 for the construction of naval vessels which is a 30year funding estimate but the this. S produced by d. O. D. We have a 30year cost estimate but our strategic. Ill close by mentioning that our gravity bombs is why we need a 30year estimate. One cost estimate produced by the cost estimating points it billion in the program but it was from fiscal year 2016 plan. If Congress Hopes to provide oversight, we must have estimates that accurately estimates. And thats why i wish to make he estimate 0 years instead of 10 years and this is a responsible way. I reserve. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition . I yield myself such time as i may consume. My friend from california is correct about one thing. 30year estimate. I oppose this estimate. I submitted an amendment number 88 that we will consider shortly my amendment was hopeful with a compromise who are offering number 10 and 12. We will put it before my colleagues. The bottom line is my colleagues re asking d. O. D. And c. B. O. To have a cost estimate. Estimate. Triple the these cost estimates wont be the paper they are written on. As evidence for that, acting secretary of defense who would be response i will has called a 25year report on this, quote, burdensome. He explained to us. Quote, right now, we submit 10 year reports. As you would expect looking out that far, 25 keers, the correct of the numbers would be very, vessel suspect. And it is extremely difficult of giving the challenges in the National Security environment. And the Armed Services committee in this house has considered these estimates for the last five years. Each time, for five years in a row, these amendments have been defeated. They would not result in good transparency. And and they would end the public debate. If any of my colleagues are trying to shed a little more light, i encourage them to vote for my amendment 88. My amendment allows the secretary of defense to have beyond 10 years. And i urge my colleagues to vote on this current amendment and yes on my amendment 88. And i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. If anything, my former chairman, when i was on on Armed Services. He continues to oppose this. Why not have a 30yearly estimate. We have one for the navy and one for the area programs. If they arent worth on the paper they are written on, the taxpayers deserve and we deserve to preserve jofrle sight. If congress has oversight, we need these reports that accurately reflect these changes