[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.

                          ____________________