[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 74 (Thursday, May 14, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2989-H2997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1735, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 260

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 1735) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense and for military construction, 
     to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal 
     year, and for other purposes. No further general debate shall 
     be in order.
       Sec. 2.  (a) In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-14. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived.
        (b) No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described 
     in section 3 of this resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules 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 in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en 
     bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  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 the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services or their respective designees, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.

                              {time}  1430



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  May 14, 2015, on page H2989, the following appeared: as I may 
consume. 1430
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only. 1430


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                             General Leave

  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 260 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2016. It is my privilege to present this rule to the House as a member 
of the Rules Committee. It is also my privilege to do so as a member of 
the committee of jurisdiction over this bill, the House Armed Services 
Committee.
  The Rules Committee received a record number of amendments to the 
bill; heard nearly 6 hours of testimony from our colleagues; and, in 
this rule, have made in order 135 amendments for consideration on the 
House floor.
  As is traditional, the rule gives the chair of the Armed Services 
Committee authority to offer such amendments en bloc to facilitate 
consideration of such a large number of amendments.
  This is a good rule that helps pave the way for the passage of the 
National Defense Authorization Act. This law, this bill, governs the 
defense of the United States of America, provides for the servicemen 
and -women that defend this country. It is the single most important 
function of this House.
  We are going to hear spirited debate today, but we need to make sure, 
as we hear this debate, that we focus on what we are here about, and 
that is to defend the people of the United States. While there are 
other things that may be brought up that are important and good, they 
are not about the defense of the United States and would not be in 
order for this bill.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have followed 
this bill from the start. Counting the Rules Committee hours and the 
hours in committee, I have personally spent over 25 hours in debate on 
this bill.
  This has been an incredibly open process: 335 amendments were filed 
at the Armed Services Committee level; 211 amendments were adopted by 
the House Armed Services Committee in markup, including 96 Democrat 
amendments; 135 amendments were made in order by the rule--69 of those 
are Democrat or bipartisan amendments. That is over 450 amendments that 
have been considered since we started this process.
  The National Defense Authorization Act has a history of 
bipartisanship, which is only appropriate on the single most important 
thing that we do, defending the people of the United States.
  It passed out of the Committee on Armed Services on a vote of 60-2. 
It has been completed every year since 1962 on a bipartisan basis. That 
is 53 straight years, and we need to make it 54.
  This bill is vitally important to our country. For the first time in 
a long time, Americans are ranking national security as their number 
one concern, even ahead of the economy.
  Former CIA leader Mike Morell said he has never seen more threats to 
our country at any other time in his 33 years in the business. Most 
alarmingly, he says that we are at risk of another attack here in the 
United States. Our military men and women need this bill to do their 
job and help keep us safe.

[[Page H2990]]

  The administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy 
and indicated in there that the President's advisers would recommend a 
veto of this bill. I sincerely hope the President would not do so, 
given the bipartisan effort to pass a bill so critical to the security 
of our Nation.
  President Obama requested authorization for $612 billion in military 
spending, and this bill matches that request dollar for dollar.
  Now, some of my colleagues quibble with that, and they quibble with 
that because, as you can see in this light blue area at the very top, 
in the President's recommendation, there is a certain amount of money 
that he wants to be in the categorization of overseas contingency 
operations, OCO.
  The bill does the same thing except it increases OCO by a small 
amount--that you can see here--and increases the base by a larger 
amount. In essence, what we have done here is gotten to the same place 
as the President by making a very small alteration to the OCO.
  Some of my colleagues are trying to use our military men and women as 
pawns in an effort to boost nondefense discretionary spending. That is 
plainly wrong and reprehensible.
  Those other issues are important to our country, and it is important 
that we debate them, but we should never hold up this piece of 
legislation that is historically bipartisan to make a point on 
something that has nothing to do with the defense of the United States 
of America.
  This bill is for the men and women who are keeping our Nation safe. 
They have elected to serve our Nation. The least we can do is give them 
the resources and the policy they need to do their job. Now, some of my 
colleagues want to use them as political bargaining chips. That is hard 
for me to believe that anyone would consider doing that in this House.
  This bill is complex. It deals with a number of very complicated 
issues. There are a couple that I know we are going to talk about today 
that I briefly want to touch on now.
  The first one is this whole issue of the overseas contingency 
operations account and how it affects this whole issue of 
sequestration. Long before I got here, there was this deal within 
Congress that was proposed by the President that, in essence, resulted 
in this artificial sequestration of funds that would otherwise be 
appropriately sent to the military, and we are operating under the 
artificial constraints of that sequestration law today.
  I don't know what the rationale was back then because I wasn't here, 
but that rationale, whatever it was, doesn't make sense today when the 
number one concern of the American people is defending the United 
States of America, when experts on this issue are telling us, over and 
over again, the American interests abroad--and, yes, here at home--are 
threatened.
  Why should we feel that we should be limited to that at a time when 
we need to be stepping forth and defending the American people?
  Now, there may be a time and a place to revisit the sequestration 
law, but that time and that place is not on this law. This law is for 
us to do what we must do to defend the United States of America, and 
this bill does that.
  Another issue that we will be hearing a lot today is a proposed 
amendment by my colleague from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), and that deals 
with the issue of immigration. Now, you may ask: Why are we talking 
about immigration in regard to a bill on national defense? That is a 
good question. We should not be.
  During the Armed Services Committee's consideration of this bill--and 
it went for 18 hours late in the process--one of our members offered an 
amendment to insert the immigration issue into this bill. It was 
unfortunate, and it was inappropriate.
  The Brooks amendment proposes to take it out, and we are going to 
have spirited debate during this rule, I predict, and during the debate 
on the bill; but make no mistake about it, however important you think 
or I think the immigration issue is, however much we think that that 
should come to this floor for consideration, this bill, a bill on the 
defense of the United States of America, is not the right bill for us 
to consider it in.

  There are other committees of jurisdiction that are supposed to do 
that--Homeland Security, for example. Those committees need to go 
through their process and make sure they do what they need to do, and 
then it can come to this floor, but it should not come to this floor to 
confuse this bill that deals with the defense of the United States of 
America.
  This rule, Madam Speaker, is an extremely fair rule made after a lot 
of debate, allowing an enormous number of amendments, and I urge its 
support.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, 355 amendments were submitted to the House Rules 
Committee on a wide variety of issues relevant to the National Defense 
Authorization Act. Of those, only 135 were made in order, or about 38 
percent. That means that the Republican majority of the Rules Committee 
rejected over 60 percent of amendments submitted by their House 
colleagues.
  This is a very exclusive structured rule. The amendments included 
under this rule are important amendments, worthy of the time and 
attention of this House, but I believe that all the amendments 
submitted merited debate and should have been included under an open 
rule.
  Further, each amendment included under this rule only receives 10 
minutes of debate maximum, equally divided. That is no way to treat 
debate of significant issues regarding our national security.
  Madam Speaker, I have served in Congress long enough that I remember 
when it used to take 4 or 5 entire days to debate the NDAA. Amendments 
that would significantly affect our defense policies and operations 
were provided with enough debate time so that all Members had the 
opportunity to speak and air their views.
  Of course, that was back in the days when the House actually worked 4 
or 5 full days each week. That simply doesn't happen anymore. There are 
fewer and fewer Members in this Chamber who remember when matters of 
substance were given the time, attention, and debate that they deserve.
  There is much to admire in the FY 2016 defense authorization bill, 
but there is also much to be concerned about, from dangerous spending 
to increase our nuclear arsenal, to continuing to tie the hands of the 
administration on how to handle the transfer of prisoners out of 
Guantanamo who have been cleared of all charges.
  One of the most blatant and egregious demonstrations of excess 
spending in the NDAA is what the bill has done to the President's 
overseas contingency operations fund, the so-called OCO fund.
  This bill adds $38 billion to the OCO fund on top of the $51 billion 
requested by the President to fund our various wars. This $38 billion 
will not be spent on war-related costs, but instead, it transfers money 
from the operations and maintenance account to the OCO to fund what 
should be base bill requirements, all as a ruse to evade the Budget 
Control Act caps.
  In the coming weeks, my House colleagues will see at least four 
appropriations bills come to the House floor that are prepared to cut 
more than $20 billion in urgently needed domestic programs, all in the 
name of staying within the caps set by the Budget Control Act; yet, 
when it comes to the Pentagon, nearly twice that amount is added to the 
OCO as a slush fund in order to avoid those very same caps. This is 
madness, Madam Speaker, absolute madness.
  The strength of our Nation--the health, welfare, and prosperity of 
our people and our communities--requires that we invest in our 
transportation and infrastructure; in our urban and rural development; 
in science, engineering, and technology; in medical research and our 
healthcare and education systems; in our children, our families, our 
workers; in our local businesses and new entrepreneurs.
  Our national and economic security is based on so much more than just 
our

[[Page H2991]]

force of arms. It is based on the role of the Federal Government in 
supporting strong quality of life for each and every one of our people, 
regardless of age, income, geography, or political affiliation. No one 
is offering them a slush fund; instead, we are cutting those programs 
to the bare bone.
  When it comes to helping the neediest among us, Madam Speaker, the 
majority in this House has, once again, prevented debate on this 
critical issue. I am disappointed that an amendment offered by my 
friend from California (Mr. Vargas) was not made in order for debate 
under this rule.
  Under current law, military servicemembers who do not live on base 
are provided with a basic allowance for housing. Because this stipend 
is offered to military families in lieu of on-base housing, it is 
exempted from Federal taxes and from being considered as income when 
determining eligibility for certain tax credits. Unfortunately, there 
is still a lack of uniformity in how the allowance is treated for 
various basic needs programs.
  For example, the basic housing allowance is being considered as 
income for the purpose of calculating SNAP benefits, which results in 
eligible households receiving a lesser SNAP benefit or being cut off 
from the program altogether. These are families who are struggling, and 
it makes absolutely no sense that receiving housing assistance means 
our military families should receive less food assistance.
  It is shameful that an ever-increasing number of military families 
are struggling to make ends meet. More and more of these families are 
relying on SNAP benefits to put food on their tables, and we need to be 
having a larger conversation about how to make sure that our servicemen 
and servicewomen and their families who have sacrificed so much for our 
country have economic security.
  Military families have unique needs, and we must make sure that they 
are receiving all the necessary assistance that they deserve.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Vargas' amendment would have simply excluded the basic housing 
allowance from any calculation of income or resources for any purpose 
under Federal, State, and local law. It is a good amendment, and it is 
a commonsense amendment, and this House should have had the opportunity 
to debate this important amendment; but while we shortchange the 
American people, local communities, and our neighbors living in 
poverty, we have plenty of time to add to the national deficit and debt 
by funding a myriad of wars on the national credit card.
  Speaking of the many wars in which the U.S. is currently engaged, 
last night in the Rules Committee, Congressman Walter Jones of North 
Carolina, the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee--Congressman Adam Smith of Washington--and I offered an 
amendment that would do one simple thing: it would have the President 
tell Congress next year what our mission is in Afghanistan and how much 
longer our servicemen and servicewomen would continue to be deployed 
over there. Then Congress would have 30 days to vote on whether or not 
to authorize or to modify that mission.
  We have been in Afghanistan for nearly 14 years. It is the longest 
military engagement in U.S. history. Over the past few years, the 
mission of our Armed Forces has been constantly altered. Supposedly, we 
ended combat operations at the end of last December; yet our forces 
still engage in combat. We are now supposed to be engaged in training 
the Afghan military and police forces and be out of Afghanistan by the 
end of 2016; but every day, I open up the newspaper, and I read how we 
are going to need to remain in Afghanistan for much, much, much longer.
  In the underlying bill, this NDAA says that the U.S. should remain 
engaged in counterterrorism and special operations after 2016. All the 
President is required to do is let us know if he wants to keep our 
troops in Afghanistan to continue training Afghan forces until they can 
stand on their own.
  Is it too much to ask for the President to tell us next spring what 
the plan is for keeping our uniformed men and women in Afghanistan and 
then having a vote on that plan? Don't our troops and don't their 
families deserve much more from us?
  I guess it is too much to ask because this Congress--once again, the 
majority on the Rules Committee--decided not to make the McGovern-
Jones-Smith amendment in order.
  So U.S. engagement in Afghanistan--our blood and our treasure--simply 
continues on and on and on and on. It is a long, endless war that 
Congress barely pays attention to anymore, not even as members of our 
Armed Forces come home in coffins or wounded in body, heart, and mind. 
One of my constituents was the first to fall this year under our new 
post-combat operations mission in Afghanistan. Who will be the last 
U.S. servicemember to die in Afghanistan?
  These are brave and honorable men and women. This House, however, is 
a disgrace.
  This House--this Congress--is incapable of being accountable for the 
wars we so easily send our servicemembers to fight and die in, and it 
is completely incapable of carrying out its constitutional 
responsibilities to specifically and explicitly authorize these 
military operations.
  It has been over 8 months since the United States began sustained 
combat operations in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State. Last 
year, the Speaker said that it was not right for the 113th Congress to 
vote on this new war started on its watch. It should be up to the next 
Congress--this Congress, the 114th Congress--to authorize the war. Then 
the Speaker complained that Congress couldn't act until the President 
sent us an AUMF. Madam Speaker, the President sent Congress an AUMF on 
February 11. That was over 3 months ago. It is not an AUMF that I would 
support, but the President did his job, and still Congress fails to 
act. Why? Because the leadership of this House says it can't find its 
way to 218 on an AUMF.
  I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but that is not how it works. The job of 
the Congress is to take a vote on an AUMF--period. If you don't like 
what the President's proposal is, then change it, vote against it, or 
bring another version to the House floor. Congress has the 
constitutional obligation to authorize the use of military force to 
combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or elsewhere. Congress has 
the responsibility to specifically debate and authorize sending 
servicemen and servicewomen into hostilities in Iraq and Syria. The 
party in charge of the House and the Senate has a responsibility to 
legislate. We don't have the right to say, ``Oh, this is just too tough 
of a job, and we don't want to deal with it.''
  If you want to be in charge, then you have to govern. Unfortunately, 
Madam Speaker, I don't see the leadership interested in governing on 
this most serious matter.
  Once again, reluctantly, Congressman Walter Jones, Congresswoman 
Barbara Lee, and I will be introducing a privileged resolution under 
the provisions of the War Powers Resolution to force a debate on 
whether our troops should remain engaged in combat operations against 
the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or whether they should withdraw.
  We have been patient. We have waited and waited and waited for the 
Republican leadership of this House to tell us when it would act on an 
AUMF for Iraq and Syria, but it has now become clear that this House 
has no intention of debating an AUMF on the fight against the Islamic 
State. It is perfectly happy to just drift along and not take any 
responsibility whatsoever for the lives that we are putting at risk in 
Iraq and Syria and for the millions of taxpayer dollars that we are 
spending each and every day.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose this underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In listening to the remarks that we have just heard from the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, I was struck by the fact that so much of 
it had to do with things other than national defense. I said in the 
very beginning that this is the authorization of the defense of 
America. Those are important issues--health care, education, 
transportation--and we need to debate those, but not in this bill. That 
is why those sorts of amendments were not made in order.

[[Page H2992]]

  Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate the defense of the United 
States of America.
  I did hear the gentleman criticize the President's policy in 
Afghanistan, and I do think that we should consider at some point in 
time an appropriate AUMF for the conflict in Iraq. This House has been 
asking the leadership for briefings and other information about the 
proposed AUMF that we got from the administration, and we haven't 
received them yet, so we can't have the sort of deliberative-type 
review of his AUMF until we receive that information.
  I would say, as important as those issues are, they are not in order 
under this bill. This is a bill that we have historically adopted in a 
bipartisan fashion. Let's stay focused on the defense of the United 
States of America in this bipartisan bill and not wander off onto other 
things that we are either not prepared for or that are not in order 
under this bill.

  At this point in time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), my colleague.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, the NDAA, as amended by 
Congressman Ruben Gallego, undermines America's border security and 
ratifies parts of Obama's illegal amnesty for illegal aliens.
  During the early morning, sleep-deprived portion of the Armed 
Services Committee NDAA hearing, the Gallego amendment, which 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to take military service 
opportunities from Americans and from lawful immigrants in order to 
give them to illegal aliens, passed on a close 33-30 vote. As Members 
ponder my amendment to strike the Gallego amendment, we should consider 
how much American families are struggling in an anemic job and wage 
market and how much the Gallego amendment makes job and income 
prospects for Americans even worse.
  From 2000 to 2014--and although the American economy gained 5.6 
million jobs in the 16 to 65 age bracket--American-born citizens 
suffered a net loss of 127,000 jobs. These job losses, combined with 
population growth, mean that there were 17 million more jobless 
American-born citizens than there were 14 years earlier. Hispanic 
Americans, African Americans, Caucasian Americans--American men and 
women--all lost economic ground. While American-born citizens suffered 
economic hardship, job losses, and wage suppression, foreign-born 
persons gained 5.7 million jobs.
  In the context of this anemic economy, Gallego's amendment to take 
military service jobs from Americans and from lawful immigrants in 
order to give them to illegal aliens is outrageous and unconscionable. 
I encourage Members to represent the interests of Americans and lawful 
immigrants by voting to strike the Gallego amendment from the NDAA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to respond to something that my friend on the Rules 
Committee said when he said that this bill is all about issues that 
have to do with the national defense of our country.
  I don't know what we are doing in Afghanistan or what we are doing in 
Iraq again or what we are doing in Syria now if it isn't supposedly in 
the name of the national defense of our country. I mean, this is the 
bill considered by the Armed Services Committee. If this is not an 
appropriate place to talk about war and about all of the military 
equipment we are sending halfway around the world, then I don't know 
what bill is appropriate. We are told over and over and over again that 
these are inappropriate vehicles in which to talk about war. This is 
the Armed Services Committee. This is the National Defense 
Authorization Act. This is the bill. This funds the wars.
  There is this notion that it doesn't belong here. Well, where the 
hell does it belong? This is important stuff, and we treat war as if it 
is nothing.
  We have men and women in harm's way, and we don't even debate whether 
or not the mission is something that we support or not. This is 
ridiculous. This is disgraceful. It is outrageous that amendments that 
are germane to this bill--that the Parliamentarian tells us are germane 
to this bill--are denied over and over and over again. These aren't 
just mine. Ms. Lee has amendments on repealing the old AUMFs from 2001 
to 2002--denied, denied. They are germane, but no one wants to talk 
about it. We are going to force you to talk about it. We are going to 
have a privileged resolution. We are going to force this debate.
  Just one other thing on the Gallego amendment. I have to tell you 
that I am always amazed at the anti-immigrant rhetoric on the other 
side of the aisle. The notion that we can't allow the Secretary of 
Defense to make decisions on whether or not DREAMers can actually serve 
our country in the Armed Forces to defend our Nation is ludicrous.
  Just so people understand this, unlike a lot of things that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle do, this was not snuck into 
something. This actually went through regular order. It was actually 
debated and voted on by the House Armed Services Committee. They voted 
``yes'' to accept it. By the way, the Army has already allowed almost 
50 DREAMers to enlist in our Armed Forces.
  What are you going to do--go and try to find these people and tell 
them that they have now been discharged?
  I feel a great kind of sense of pride that there are people in this 
country who have been mostly raised in this country and who want to 
serve this country. That is something, I think, that every American 
takes pride in. That the rhetoric is so nasty and so demeaning, I 
think, is beneath what this House is about.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Hahn).
  Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, I rise against the rule that we are 
considering to the National Defense Authorization bill.
  I was extremely disappointed late last night, as you can imagine, 
when the Rules Committee decided not to make my amendment in order for 
today.
  My amendment would have provided a token thank-you to the World War 
II merchant mariners. These brave men suffered the highest losses of 
any military branch in World War II, and they did not receive veterans' 
benefits under the GI Bill.
  Time is running out. These merchant mariners are now in their 
eighties and their early nineties. There are only 5,000 living today. 
We can't continue with the slow wheels of bureaucracy. We can't do a 
study to see if they deserve it or if we can afford it. Congress should 
act swiftly and with a sense of urgency.
  As President Eisenhower said:

       When final victory is ours, there is no organization that 
     will share its credit more deservedly than the merchant 
     marine.

  It is too late for this bill today, but it is sad, as we are about to 
vote on a bill that authorizes our defense of this country, that we 
couldn't take a moment to give a token thank-you to those who were 
involved in the defense of this country.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague, Mo Brooks. The Brooks amendment is 
simple. It keeps the immigration debate out of the national security 
debate. That is it.
  My colleague, Mr. Gallego, inserted language during the markup to 
require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review under section 504 
of title 10, United States Code, relating to whether or not those who 
have received amnesty under President Obama's DACA initiative should be 
able to enlist in the services, but that very statute already provides 
the Secretary of Defense the authority he or she needs to make such a 
determination if there is a readiness crisis. It is already there.
  Specifically, paragraph (b)(2) entitles him to ``authorize the 
enlistment of a person . . . if the Secretary determines that such 
enlistment is vital to the national interest.''
  Now, while the Gallego language may appear to be simple, a sense of 
Congress to some, in function it will be

[[Page H2993]]

cited by the lawyers arguing on behalf of the President's executive 
overreach. Those lawyers will say, you see, even the House of 
Representatives has passed language that recognizes DACA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BYRNE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. The Center for Immigration Studies agrees the Gallego 
language is unnecessary and is simply meant to undercut the ongoing 
litigation about the legality and unconstitutionality of DACA.
  If the Brooks amendment is not accepted and this language is left in 
the NDAA, it potentially jeopardizes passage of critical legislation. 
My colleagues, I have fought the President on his executive actions and 
will fight here again. It is our purview. Once again, I said, the House 
has moved three times to demonstrate that DACA is illegitimate. This 
should be the fourth time. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Brooks 
amendment, stripping the Gallego language.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the latest 
efforts by leadership to appease hard-liners on immigration. Today, 
this body is allowing their loudest anti-immigrant voices to overrule 
the adoption of the Gallego amendment by none other than the 
Republican-controlled Armed Services Committee, controlled by the 
Republican majority. Not only are they throwing their highly touted 
regular order out of the window, they are taking one more dive down the 
anti-immigrant rabbit hole.
  The amendment by my friend from Arizona simply expresses a sense of 
the House that the Secretary of Defense should review whether 
recipients of deferred action should be allowed to serve in the 
military. It doesn't say the military must allow them to serve. It 
says, let's do a review, a study, a sense of Congress. We woke up today 
and this is how we feel. Remember that these same 700,000 recipients 
who grew up here in America, passed a criminal background check, and 
now have a legal work permit to reside in the United States, they are 
ready to risk their lives to defend the only country they know. It just 
says, Hey, do you guys want to take a look?
  Meanwhile, you totally missed the Veasey amendment calling for a 
similar study of how executive actions of President Obama and 
prosecutorial discretion could expand the pool of potential military 
recruits and how enlistment of DACA applicants would impact military 
readiness. They missed that one. I guess NumbersUSA didn't give you a 
call over on the other side or Heritage Action forgot to tell you about 
that provision.
  So, Republican hard-liners fixated on the Gallego amendment. Seeing 
the word ``review,'' all they heard was the word ``amnesty.'' If the 
majority party is unable to allow a nonbinding study approved by the 
committee of jurisdiction where they are the majority because it 
includes the word ``immigrants'' without slapping the amnesty label on 
it, how on Earth will you be able to fix our broken immigration system 
or win over the fastest-growing group of voters in this country?
  It is clear to me that the candidate who is ready to embrace 
immigrants and protect DREAMers and their families may as well start 
measuring the drapes at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and I think I know 
what her name is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). Members are reminded 
to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King), my friend.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say, first of all, that neither the gentleman 
from Massachusetts nor the one from Chicago can quote any anti-
immigrant statements from anybody over on this side. That is their 
tired rhetoric. It is not a fact.
  What is a fact is we initiated a lawsuit called Crane v. Napolitano 
clear back when these first unconstitutional acts were delivered by the 
President. He clearly has violated the Constitution. I don't actually 
think there is any worthy debate to the contrary, and this Congress has 
voted three times--three times--to shut off the funding or to eliminate 
the President's lawless, unconstitutional actions, Mr. Speaker. That 
includes June of 2013, King amendment, and very similar language in 
August of 2014 and January of 2015.
  So I wanted to announce to this Congress that we will stand on the 
Constitution. This Congress cannot send a message to ratify the 
President's lawless actions. We must defend the Constitution because 
that is our oath, to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States. His oath is to take care to faithfully execute the laws, and 
instead, he has done the opposite. So we have pro-amnesty people on the 
other side.
  I will support the rule, the Brooks amendment, but I will not support 
the NDAA if the amendment fails.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding but 
also for his tremendous leadership on the Committee on Rules and also 
just in terms of making sure that we, as Members of Congress, do our 
job. So thank you very much.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the bill. I offered 
three bipartisan amendments to H.R. 1735, the National Defense 
Authorization Act, and I am very disappointed to say that, once again, 
two of my amendments to address the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force were not made in order. The first, offered with Representative 
Walter Jones, would have repealed the 2001 blank check for endless war, 
which has been used more than 30 times, mind you, to justify military 
action around the world.
  The other, that I also offered with Representative Jones, would have 
removed the unnecessary 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military 
Force that continues to be on the books. This is years after the White 
House has said they no longer needed it and encouraged Congress to 
repeal it.

  Mr. Speaker, it is past time for Congress to live up to its 
constitutional obligations in matters of war and peace. We need to rip 
up that 2001 blank check for endless war, and we need to repeal the 
unnecessary 2002 Iraq AUMF instead of leaving it on the books 
indefinitely.
  I do want to thank the committee for making in order a commonsense, 
bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Burgess, Schakowsky, 
and myself that would require the DOD to rank all departments and 
defense agencies in order of how advanced they are in their audit 
readiness. As the only Federal agency that has yet to complete an 
audit, the Pentagon has never been held accountable for the potential 
loss of billions of dollars to waste, fraud, and abuse; so we need to 
bring vital congressional oversight and accountability to the Pentagon 
and to ensure that the Pentagon follows the law.
  Let me also just address a few more troubling provisions in this 
bill. This bill authorized $715 million to train and equip Iraqi forces 
and an additional $600 million for Syrian opposition forces. That is 
more than a billion dollars for the now 8-month-long war against ISIL.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. LEE. Let me go back and remind you how much that is. That is more 
than a billion dollars for the now 8-month-long war against ISIL. That 
is a war that Congress has yet to debate and authorize.
  Again, I call on Speaker Boehner to make Congress do its job and to 
schedule this critical debate.
  I want to thank Congressman McGovern for offering a privileged 
resolution. It is really a shame that we must do this, but we must take 
our heads out of the sand here and be responsible to our constituents 
and our country.
  This bill also funnels $89 billion into the Pentagon slush fund known 
as the overseas contingency account; $38 billion of this would go back 
into the base

[[Page H2994]]

budget to avoid the budget cuts. This is simply unacceptable. Instead 
of continuing to use budget gimmicks to further bloat the Pentagon 
budget, Congress should be working to ensure accountability and 
transparency by forcing an audit of the Pentagon.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Burgess-Schakowsky-Lee amendment 
and to oppose the underlying bill. It is time for Congress to stop the 
policy of endless war and to bring some accountability to the Pentagon.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for the time.
  I rise today with mixed feelings on this important legislation, the 
FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. I appreciate the leadership 
of Chairman Thornberry for bringing a transformative bill to the floor 
that will strengthen our armed services and provide stability to the 
brave men and women of our military.
  I am also grateful for section 841, which includes the text of the 
SESO Act, a bill I have introduced that ensures small entrepreneurs 
have a fair seat at the table.
  But on the other side of this dichotomy is what I fear to be a truly 
unfortunate path for this body to take. Included in the underlying text 
of this bill is language that would request the Defense Secretary study 
the feasibility of allowing young men and women who were brought to 
this country as children the opportunity to serve in our armed 
services.
  I am very supportive of this sentiment, Mr. Speaker, and let's keep 
in mind, this is a nonbinding sense of the House. However, there are 
Members of this body who are threatening to vote against final passage 
of the NDAA if this sense of Congress isn't stricken from the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BYRNE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, these young men and women were brought to our great 
country very early in life, often by no choice of their own. They have 
grown up in our neighborhoods and attended the same schools as our own 
children. For most of these young people, the United States is the only 
country they have ever called home. Allowing the Secretary of Defense 
to consider their service in our military should be something our 
country is proud to support, not something that will kill this bill.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Brooks amendment 
and look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill that 
will benefit all those who serve.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I want to commend the 
gentleman for his very sensible remarks, and I appreciate it.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
  Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to ask my esteemed 
colleagues to stand with me in declaring, Let our DREAMers serve. Let 
the young men and women who were brought here as children, through no 
fault of their own, serve their country. Let them serve the country 
that educated them. Let them serve the country they love. Their ability 
to serve benefits us all. It provides an expanded pool of willing and 
capable applicants helping to uphold and even increase the rigorous 
standards to enlist in our military. The Army recently tripled its pool 
of immigrant applicants, and DREAMers should be a part of that pool.
  To those who claim that this is amnesty, I have a simple message. As 
a Marine Corps combat veteran, I can assure you, Parris Island ain't 
amnesty. As my late father, a career soldier, told me, serving your 
nation in uniform is the highest expression of American citizenship. 
From German immigrants serving in the Continental Army at Valley Forge 
to over 100,000 who have been naturalized through the military since 
2002, immigrants have always been a part of our fighting forces.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BYRNE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Colorado.
  Mr. COFFMAN. If DREAMers want to put their life on the line for this 
Nation, we should give them the opportunity and honor their willingness 
to serve.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Brooks amendment, which 
would strip this provision from the NDAA.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke as well. I 
think we wouldn't be having any of this debate if my friends on the 
other side of the aisle would have allowed us to vote on a 
comprehensive immigration reform package last year, the one that the 
Senate passed in a bipartisan way. Anyway, they chose to deny us that 
ability to even have a debate and a vote on that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Norcross).

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today allows for an 
amendment that touches on a matter very personal to me, an issue that 
impacts our Nation on the battlefield and for families struggling with 
an immigration system that is certainly dysfunctional.
  November 12, last year, right there in that seat, I was sitting by my 
grandson's side when I was sworn in as a Member of this House, one of 
the proudest days of my life. Certainly, my grandson was looking 
forward to it.
  If the Gallego amendment on DREAMers that we are debating here later 
today were in effect, my grandson wouldn't be here. My granddaughter 
wouldn't be here.
  My son was serving in the Army in South Korea when he met a girl who 
was serving our great Nation. They fell in love and got married. They 
moved back to Fort Hood, Texas, serving our country, where they had my 
first grandchild, one of the proudest days I have ever seen. They 
continued to serve our great country, raising their child, when I got a 
call late one night with my son crying, saying: ``They are going to 
deport my wife.''
  We didn't know she wasn't an American. She volunteered to lay down 
her life for our country. My son didn't know she wasn't an American 
citizen; yet she is that DREAMer that we are talking about. She is the 
American Dream, one who comes to this country and decides to serve it.
  This brings us forward to today. My grandson is here; yet we are 
still debating. For the people that volunteer, the greatest thing they 
can do is lay down their lives for our country, and we are denying them 
an opportunity for them to serve our country.
  Where are we as a nation, that great melting pot? The strength that 
makes our country is where we all come from.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. NORCROSS. My daughter-in-law only knew America. As far as her 
memory went, she was here. She went to school with all the other kids, 
as you heard other people speak about. That is why I am urging us to 
reject what I think is one of the most cruel things we can do to those 
who come to our country and want to be American citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and not deny 
those people who want to serve our country that ability to serve.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Rules Committee for 
allowing Mr. Brooks' amendment to be in order. I want to also address 
these concerns about allowing people to join the military.
  I fought with my own leadership against a bill that would allow 
sequester, allow the gutting of our Defense Department. I said it was a 
mistake. I was told it would never happen. Well, it did.
  If both sides of the aisle want to find cuts in other programs so we 
can rebuild our military and let anybody that wants to join the 
military that is qualified, I am for it, but right now, we are gutting 
our military. We are telling people who have put their lives in

[[Page H2995]]

harm's way for us that they are going to have to leave.
  This language basically can be taken up as judicial notice by the 
appellate courts to tell Judge Hanen in south Texas Federal court: You 
were wrong. We are lifting the injunction, the very injunction that our 
Republican leader said we were relying on in breaking our promise.
  We need this language removed, and then let's work on building the 
military back up.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that we 
are not cutting the military. My friends created a slush fund so they 
can get around sequestration, with regard to the Pentagon.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman. I 
know a lot of hard work has gone into the preparation of the underlying 
bill. We are approaching Memorial Day and then celebrating Veterans 
Day, as we acknowledge our soldiers on the front line.
  I hope my colleagues will support the Jackson Lee amendments dealing 
with the outreach to small businesses and minority-owned businesses 
with the Department of Defense to deal with HBCUs, which are very, very 
important in equalizing the research opportunities and working to 
ensure the protection of the DOD software.
  I am hopeful that we will have an opportunity to address my issue 
dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. I put the first center 
that was not in a veterans hospital in Houston. I believe we need to 
realize how devastating PTSD is and ensure that we have the opportunity 
for more funding.
  The overseas contingency fund needs to be restrained and brought in.
  I want to support the amendment by Mrs. Dingell to assist those 
American citizens who are stuck in Yemen. We must address that.
  I also want to make sure that we do not strike the very favorable 
language dealing with our DREAMers who want to serve their country.
  We should have comprehensive immigration form. We should not vote for 
the Mo Brooks amendment.
  Finally, let me say, Mr. Speaker--although not dealing with this--let 
us acknowledge with sadness those who lost their lives in Pennsylvania 
and do a better job in infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule for H.R. 1735, the 
``National Defense Authorization Act of 2015'' and the underlying bill.
  I would like to thank both Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member 
Smith for their dedication and hard work on the 2015 NDAA.
  The U.S. war on terror has been waged for over a decade and the 
lesson is clear: our adversaries adapt very quickly because they are 
not constrained by geographic limitations.
  In the beginning it was only Al Qaeda--now the list includes Boko 
Haram, Al Shabaab, and ISIS/ISIL.
  The message is clear--the United States must expand its capacity to 
meet the terrorist threat where it emerges.
  At the same time, we must be constantly searching for innovative ways 
to utilize defense technologies and resources for the betterment of the 
American people.
  The National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 takes important steps 
toward achieving these goals, and I am proud to have authored several 
amendments which were made in order on this bill.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #55 calls for outreach for small business 
concerns owned and controlled by women and minorities prior to 
conversion of certain functions to contractor performance.
  Contracts issued by the Department of Defense represent a substantial 
portion of.
  These same concerns drove the proposal and adoption of Jackson Lee 
Amendment #64, which provides guidance to the Secretary of Defense on 
identifying HBCUs and minority serving institutions to assist them in 
developing scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematics 
capabilities.
  Knowledge of STEM fields will be integral in the coming years, both 
for a powerful economy and for the Department of Defense to operate at 
its maximum potential.
  By identifying and engaging HBCUs and other minority serving 
institutions, such as Houston's own Texas Southern University, which 
have strong science and engineering programs, the DOD can greatly 
expand its pool of qualified applicants.
  The final Jackson Lee Amendment which was made in order is #125, 
which ensures that changes made to DOD computing systems using software 
bought and modified for agency operations will not result in the 
disruption of DOD operations.
  Increasing cooperation between the DOD and other agencies has 
resulted in incredible breakthroughs in operations and efficiency.
  However, given the importance of DOD functions for the security of 
our nation, it is imperative that steps be taken to ensure those 
functions will continue unhindered by any changes to their computing 
systems.
  Although I am proud to have these amendments included in the NDAA of 
2015, several of my other amendments were not included, each of which 
would have a substantial impact on the well-being of the men and women 
of the armed services as well as veterans who bravely serve our nation.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #76 calls for increased collaboration between 
the DOD and the National Institutes of Health to combat Triple Negative 
Breast Cancer.
  TNBC is a rare from of breast cancer which is highly difficult to 
detect, and which disproportionately affects African American and 
Hispanic women.
  TNBC is especially difficult to treat, because it is unaffected by 
what are normally the most effective and targeted treatments, as well 
as being extremely aggressive.
  70% of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not 
live more than five years after being diagnosed.
  In addition, according to the Army Times, 874 military women were 
diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2011.
  As a breast cancer survivor myself, I believe that we should commit 
all available resources to combating this horrible condition, including 
those from the DOD.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #77 seeks to relieve the terrible realities of 
post-traumatic stress disorder by authorizing an additional $2.5 
million in funding specifically for this purpose.
  Post-traumatic stress disorder is a devastating condition that 
affects an estimated 20% of veterans.
  Less than 40% of individuals suffering from PTSD seek assistance, and 
those who do often receive care that is only ``minimally adequate''.
  When untreated, PTSD can cause veterans to lose their jobs, their 
homes, and even their own lives.
  Conservative estimates place the suicide rate for veterans at 
approximately 5,000 per year, and male veterans are more than twice as 
likely as civilians to attempt suicide.
  In the State of Texas we have 1,099,141 veterans under the age of 65 
and 590,618 who are over the age of 65. There are over 1,689,759 
veterans living in our State.
  These statistics are especially concerning for me, since Houston is 
both the third largest military retirement community in the United 
States and the second largest recruiting district among all the armed 
services.
  It is clear that our veterans deserve more from us, and we must do 
everything in our power to ensure that they receive the proper care.
  A final issue regarding the NDAA is the concerns expressed by the 
White House over the spending levels and other provisions included in 
the bill as written.
  The administration has expressed its objection to funding levels that 
it considers too low and incapable of adequately providing for 
necessary force structure and weapon systems reforms, leading senior 
advisors to recommend that the President veto the bill if it leaves 
Congress in its current state.
  I hope that the amendments proposed by myself and by my fellow 
Members of Congress, as well as by the leaders in the Senate, will 
address the President's concerns, and that we can resolve this impasse 
quickly and effectively.
  Mr. BYRNE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
  No greater love is there than to lay down your life for another. It 
is a paraphrase. It is biblical, secular.
  Here, we have individuals, the DREAMers, who are American in every 
way possible. They have been schooled here in America, raised here in 
the United States. Their dream is to become American citizens, and they 
want to give back to a nation that has helped make them who they are.
  I want to congratulate Mr. Gallego for his amendment and his success 
in committee. I want to congratulate the bipartisan Rules Committee 
that saw this amendment through here to the floor. I want my Republican 
colleagues to question the motivations of those who would try to strip 
this out.
  No greater love--we hope that it never comes to actually sacrificing 
one's life, but please don't deny those who want to help serve and 
protect the

[[Page H2996]]

interests of our country and deny them the opportunity to serve in some 
capacity and to sacrifice maybe their lives for this country, the 
country that we love, the country that they love, the only country that 
they have ever known.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Don't deny the best, the brightest, and the bravest the 
opportunity to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces.
  Mr. BYRNE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a lot in this bill that we all 
support, and there is much in this bill that many of us find very 
objectionable.
  I still have a tough time understanding why this House refuses to 
deal with the fact that we are engaged in a number of wars around the 
world and this Congress refuses to live up to its constitutional 
responsibilities to deal with it.
  The gentleman tells us that this is not the place. Well, the OCO 
account is in this bill. It funds some of the wars, so the bill that 
funds wars seems like the place you would go to talk about these wars; 
yet not only the amendment that I offered, along with the ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Smith, and Walter Jones of 
North Carolina, but the amendments that my colleague Barbara Lee of 
California offered on the AUMFs, we were told we can't debate them--no 
debate.
  We have got men and women in harm's way, but we are not going to 
debate the wars. We are not going to talk about whether this is a good 
mission. We are not going to talk about the future of the missions. We 
are not going to talk about how much it is going to cost. We are not 
going to talk about anything. We are going to make believe that that is 
not part of our national defense discussion. It is unconscionable.
  For the life of me, I can't quite understand why the leadership of 
this House and the leadership in the Senate refuse to do their job. If 
you can't handle it, then maybe it is time to leave.
  The second thing is this debate over the Gallego amendment. I remind 
my colleagues it is germane to this bill. This is not some extraneous 
thing that has nothing to do with this bill. The Parliamentarian said 
it is germane. The Armed Services Committee, the committee of 
jurisdiction, debated it. That is what committees are supposed to do. 
They even voted on it, which is what committees are supposed to do, and 
they voted ``yes'' in favor of it.
  If you don't like it, fine; you can strike it, but save all this 
anti-immigrant rhetoric, this nastiness. Stop belittling these men and 
women who came to this country as children, who know no other country 
than this country, who want to serve this country, who want to put 
their lives on the line for this country. Please don't diminish what 
they want to do or what some of them are already doing.
  My colleague says this bill is not about immigration. It isn't about 
immigration. This is about the military. The only people that are 
making this about immigration are my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, the ones that are saying: If we don't strip the Gallego 
amendment from this bill, we are going to vote against the whole NDAA.
  This resentment, this contempt for immigrants has resulted in this 
kind of knee-jerk reaction that we can't support anything because of 
that. It is ludicrous.
  The bottom line here is that I hope my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle vote against the Brooks amendment and vote for the Gallego 
amendment. We can do better than this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I predicted in my opening statement, we have heard a lot about a 
number of things that don't have to do with the defense of the United 
States of America.
  For 53 straight years, the Congress of the United States and the 
Presidents of the United States have worked together in a bipartisan 
fashion to pass a National Defense Authorization Act to provide for the 
defense of the American people, the number one job we have under the 
Constitution; yet we find ourselves here today literally tearing 
ourselves apart as a body over issues that don't have anything to do 
with defending America.
  I want to urge people on both sides, however they feel about all 
these issues, to understand that whether you win or lose your amendment 
on the committee or the floor, at the end of the day, we come together 
as Americans, and we defend our country. That is what our constituents 
send us here to do. If we can't come together on that, then we are 
truly lost as a nation.
  I don't think we are lost, but we wander off in places we shouldn't 
go when we have debates like we have had today. It is unfortunate.
  I am the descendant of immigrants. I dare say virtually everybody in 
this body is a descendant of immigrants. It is not even debatable that 
immigration is good for this country, or the vast majority of us 
wouldn't even be here. That is not the point of this bill. The point of 
this bill is to defend the country.
  We heard a lot about the OCO account. It was called a slush fund. 
This President and Presidents before him have asked for an OCO account 
every year since it was first created. Not once has it been a slush 
fund. It has been used to defend the United States of America, as the 
OCO account that is in this bill will be used to defend the United 
States of America.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts has been around here longer than I 
have, but I am sure he knows that the primary jurisdiction of the House 
for an AUMF--and this Congress--is with the Foreign Affairs Committee, 
not with the Armed Services Committee that was the committee of 
jurisdiction on this bill.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee is working on an AUMF, but they are 
waiting for information from the White House, which they haven't gotten 
yet.
  Maybe we can get that information from the White House, get to work 
on the AUMF, and get it to this floor in the appropriate vehicle, but 
the National Defense Authorization Act is not the appropriate vehicle 
and so ruled the Rules Committee, and that is what is in this rule.
  I have heard a lot of talk about what is germane to the bill and what 
is not germane to the bill. This is not about germaneness. This is 
about a central function of the Federal Government. It is about 
defending the American people.
  As I stand here today during this debate, I am reminded of the great 
sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their families make on a 
daily basis so that we may continue to debate and deliberate in an open 
way.

                              {time}  1530

  Debate and discussion have been the foundation of our democracy, and 
we owe that to our Nation's military. The least we can do is honor that 
tradition of service and sacrifice by continuing the bipartisan 
tradition of passing an NDAA for the 54th straight year.
  Whether there are people on one side that want to vote against the 
bill because there is something in the there they don't like about 
immigration or people on the other side are trying to make a partisan 
point by telling their side, ``Don't vote for the bill because of 
OCO,'' or because we are worried about what it might do to domestic 
policy programs, we need to put that out of our minds.
  At the end of the day, whatever amendments are added or not added to 
this bill, it is our job to pass this bill to defend the country.
  There will be plenty of opportunity for partisan disagreement down 
the road, but not on this issue. At this time, we need to come 
together, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans.
  Let's pass this rule. Let's debate these amendments, all 135 of them, 
but most importantly, let's pass this act. Let's give our military men 
and women the resources they need to do their job.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H2997]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 1191; and the motion to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill, H.R. 2297.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 181, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               YEAS--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barletta
     Capps
     Cleaver
     Davis, Danny
     Ribble
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Speier
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1600

  Mses. EDWARDS, SLAUGHTER, JACKSON LEE, Messrs. CARNEY and GARAMENDI 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________