[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 118 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5774-H5776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2810, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 440 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 440
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. 2810) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2018 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.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended,
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.
(b) Each further 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.
(c) All points of order against the further amendments
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules or 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 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 pursuant to this resolution the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. 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. Mr. 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.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 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. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 440 provides for a complete
consideration of H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018. The rule allows for consideration of 122 amendments
in addition to the amendments made in order by yesterday's rule.
This brings the total number of amendments made in order for full
consideration to 210. When you add in the 275 amendments offered during
the Armed Services Committee markup, we will, in total, have considered
485 amendments to this year's NDAA.
Just as important, there is a clear bipartisan split between the
number of majority and the number of minority amendments made in order.
Mr. Speaker, this has been an incredibly open process that allowed
Members of this body from both sides to have their input on this
critical national security legislation.
Like other years, the NDAA is a great example of the House working
through regular order in the authorizing process and getting the job
done.
Thanks to this rule and the one we passed yesterday, the House will
debate a number of issues where Members of this body have diverse
views. From the future of GTMO to the future of the New START, the two
NDAA rules provide for a robust debate on many important topics. That
is a good thing, and I look forward to the debate.
[[Page H5775]]
Before I continue, I want to briefly thank the staff in both the
Armed Services Committee and the Rules Committee for their hard work on
this rule. Dealing with this large number of amendments takes a
considerable amount of time, and I know I speak for the entire body,
both the majority and minority, in expressing our gratitude for their
time and work in helping the members of the Rules Committee come to
this product.
Yesterday, I outlined my strong support for this year's NDAA, which
will help keep the American people safe and secure, so I won't rehash
all those points. But I want to share some numbers that highlight the
readiness crisis facing our military. This crisis has been caused by
cuts to defense spending. This bill authorizes funding for the military
at $688.3 billion, which is 16.8 percent of total Federal outlays and
3.4 percent of projected gross domestic product.
As a guiding point, 30 years ago, the fiscal year 1988 NDAA
represented 27.3 percent of total Federal outlays. This year, 16
percent; back then, 27 percent. And 5.2 percent of projected GDP. This
year, 3.4 percent; back then, 5.2 percent.
We are spending less proportionately today on our military, despite
the fact that we face a wider range of threats across the globe. That
should be troubling to every American.
Let's think about the threat environment we faced 30 years ago: the
Soviet Union. That was about it. There was no ISIS or al-Qaida or other
radical Islamic terrorist organizations threatening the United States
30 years ago. Iran was not an existential threat to the American people
30 years ago. North Korea wasn't developing nuclear weapons and
ballistic missiles 30 years ago. China was not on the radar as it
relates to a military power 30 years ago. We weren't worried about
cyber attacks or cyber espionage 30 years ago.
It is safe to say the world was a lot different 30 years ago, yet we
were devoting a greater portion of our Federal budget to the military.
We must make that same or an even greater commitment today. For too
long, we, in Congress, have allowed our military to steadily atrophy,
bringing us to a readiness crisis. Providing for our national defense
is the most important job of this Congress, and this bill helps
rebuild, repair, and reform our military.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 440 and
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama
for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night, the majority on the House
Rules Committee once again decided to exclude from debate 230
amendments to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act. That
means that half of the amendments submitted were rejected.
I can never understand why these amendments are denied the chance to
be debated by the full House. When I first came to Capitol Hill as an
aide to our former friend and colleague, Congressman Joe Moakley, the
Defense Authorization bill would often take up to a week for debate.
But even back then, it was one of the largest and most complex bills
debated, and certainly one of the most important from a national
security point of view.
The NDAA rule was also structured back then, but more in terms of the
amount of time permitted for debate. And many amendments receive 1
hour, half an hour, 20 minutes, even 2 hours of debate. Why? Because
they were about the important decisions and priorities facing our
national defense policy at the time.
But that is not the case today. Amendments are lucky to get 10
minutes of debate equally divided if they are lucky enough to be
debated at all. And the Defense bill takes up a total of maybe 2 days'
worth of debate, if that. No wonder, no wonder Members are frustrated
by this process.
This year, like every year for the past several years, important
issues, especially on war and peace, were left on the chopping block by
the Republicans.
They decided that the House should not debate two bipartisan
amendments that would make sure that nothing in the NDAA could be
construed as authorization to use force against the governments of
North Korea or Syria.
The Republican majority decided it is okay to debate a bigoted
amendment that prohibits medical treatment for transgender
servicemembers who are in transition, but they will not let the House
debate an amendment that just calls for a study, Mr. Speaker, on blood
donations from gay men.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, did you know that there is a provision in the NDAA that
sets up an entire new military service branch, the Space Corps? The
Pentagon doesn't want it; the Air Force doesn't want it; they say it is
premature, but an amendment by Mr. Turner, a Republican, to require the
Pentagon to report on the need to establish a Space Corps is not
included in this rule. I guess the Republican leadership doesn't want
the House to have a say and a debate on such a major change.
Mr. Amash led a bipartisan amendment to block the sale of cluster
munitions to Saudi Arabia. Last year, this amendment failed by just a
handful of votes. I guess that is why the Republicans on the Rules
Committee aren't about to let it come up for a debate and a vote this
year.
When it comes to sending our uniformed women and men into war, into
danger, where their very lives are at risk, the Rules Committee decided
that such amendments were not worth the House's time to debate.
Last night, Republicans on the Rules Committee denied the opportunity
for debate on a bipartisan amendment offered by myself and
Representatives Walter Jones, Barbara Lee, Tom Massie, John Garamendi,
Dan Kildee, and Peter Welch.
The amendment is very straightforward. If the President decides to
increase the level of U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan in fiscal
year 2018, then he would report to Congress on the purpose and mission
of those troops, how many were required, and how long they would be
there, and then Congress would vote to approve or disapprove that
escalation.
This would give the American people the voice they deserve when it
comes to sending our men and women in uniform into battle.
Mr. Speaker, the President and General Mattis just decided to send an
additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, on top of
the 8,400 U.S. troops already there. That will bring the total number
of American troops there to more than 12,000.
Now, if they should decide that they want even more troops in
Afghanistan in fiscal year 2018, Congress should know why, and vote on
it.
We can't keep giving the administration a blank check and allow
America once again to go down the slippery slope of incremental
escalation over the next year or two. Congress needs to step up to the
plate and either approve or disapprove any renewed escalation in
Afghanistan. Isn't that amendment worth debating?
We are in year 16 of the war in Afghanistan. It is the longest war in
American history. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Afghanistan is the
longest war in U.S. history. The costs are already in the hundreds of
billions of dollars, and the human cost to our troops, our veterans,
and their families have been enormous, yet Congress has not taken a
single vote, has not taken a single stand on this war for 16 years.
Most of the Members of this House weren't even here when that one and
only vote was taken.
So in the absence of debating an updated AUMF for Afghanistan, the
very least we can do is debate whether we will once again escalate our
military footprint in Afghanistan, but the Republican leadership of
this House doesn't agree.
Each year, the Republican leadership does everything it can to stop
any debate on these wars, and this year is no different. They will
allow some amendments on reports and a sense of Congress here and
there, but any amendment of substance that requires Congress to act is
denied.
Mr. Speaker, I want to advise my colleagues of one thing, and that
is, we are not an advisory commission. We are a legislative body. We
need to start doing our job.
[[Page H5776]]
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with a report, but it won't be the
first time we have seen a report, whether on Afghanistan or Iraq or
Syria. Even the underlying bill calls for a strategy report on
Afghanistan and other conflicts, but Congress avoiding taking any
responsibility for continuing to send our servicemen and -women into
harm's way is absolutely shameful. Mr. Speaker, it is cowardice.
Every day, military families say good-bye to their loved ones as they
go into battle, placing themselves in harm's way to keep our country
safe, and Congress does nothing. All we do is kick the can down the
road and call for another report and then another report.
Mr. Speaker, we don't even act when the President actually does send
us an AUMF, the way President Obama did on Iraq and Syria and the war
against ISIS. We did nothing. We said we didn't like it, but we did
nothing. The Republican leadership complained that they didn't like it,
but then they never even tried to act on it or to write their own AUMF.
They would rather just stand on the sidelines, complain and criticize,
but do nothing, absolutely nothing, except stop other Members from
taking any action that might require the House to debate these wars.
Shame on all of us for allowing this to continue over and over and over
and over again.
Now, I am guessing that whenever the House takes up the Defense
appropriations bill, the Republican leaders will find a way to make
sure that the bipartisan-supported provision in that bill to sunset the
2001 AUMF on Afghanistan and vote on a new one within 8 months will
somehow disappear without a single Member of the House at large having
a chance to vote on it. Maybe we will get another report. And so it
goes on and on.
Mr. Speaker, there is nearly $700 billion authorized in this bill for
wars, for weapons systems, for military equipment, and for personnel,
all because Congress refuses to make hard choices. We can never seem to
find the money to take care of our own neighborhoods and schools. We
can't find the money to provide our citizens with better, more
affordable healthcare, or make sure that all our families can put food
on the table. We don't invest nearly enough in our roads and our
bridges, railways and transit systems. There is never enough money to
invest in a 21st century manufacturing base, provide training to
support the jobs of the future, or raise the Federal minimum wage to a
livable wage. We are told we don't have the money to take care of our
parks or to make sure that our air and water are drinkable and
breathable. We can't even seem to find the money to take care of our
senior citizens and our children, but when it comes to spending on war
or building more nuclear weapons, then magically we find trillions of
dollars to operate and spend.
We need to pay more attention, Mr. Speaker, to the choices we make
each year on how much spending our Nation really requires for its
national defense. I believe, at a minimum, Mr. Speaker, that Congress
needs to debate and vote on whether to keep sending more and more of
our military men and women to fight in endless wars.
And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues, what the Rules
Committee did last night by shutting out debate was shameful.
____________________