tv U.S. House Approves National Defense Authorization Act 344-81 CSPAN July 14, 2017 9:00am-2:04pm EDT
healthary agnes carey, a expert, she falls this on kaiser health news. you can read it online. host: we will take you to the house. like code on c-span or the senate is back next week. thank you for joining us. signed 14, i appoint -- upon the ryan the speaker of representative is. chaplain conroy: let us pray. give you thanks, o god, for giving us another day. the members you of congress, the president, his struggle nd all who to lead your people.
acknowledge your sovereignty over all events and times. renew america in confident faith and deepen our commitment to seek peace. help us to work sovereignty over all events and times. together when whom we find se it difficult to trust, but with a m we must try to forge common future of security and prosperity. this people's house with your that all might seek to find first areas of agreement and openness to honest exchange where it is not. may all that is done within the people's house be for your honor and glory, amen. e speaker pro tempore: the the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from .llinois,
>> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the up to five ntertain requests for one-minute speeches from each side of the aisle. or what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. bost: i ask unanimous consent to address the house or one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bost: mr. speaker, i rise to advocate for the victims of human trafficking. for the law enforcement and organizations who are on the frontlines combating this growing problem. human trafficking is a growing problem in illinois. ninth in the nation in reported trafficking cases. are on the rise nationwide. as the father of three and i'm angry. of 11, we must wipe out this evil
before it does any more harm. i'm proud that the republicans together have passed free anti-traffic bills -- three anti-traffic bills this week. our work is far from over but these bills are vitally important to help protect american families. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman om north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. speaker, i rise this morning to recognize of ive of my home state north carolina, richard, and a graduate of our alma mater central lina university. tomorrow night richard will be nccu alumni association with the prestigious lifetime achievement award. richard is most deserving of this great honor. since graduating in 1981, he dedicated alumnus to the university, always exemplifying our motto of truth service. richard continues to serve nccu
and its alumni community in trust capacities at the local, state, and national levels. time, talent, resources to help students from across the country to succeed in obtaining a quality education from historically black colleges and universities. married ith has been to jaclyn for 28 years. as nccu 40 years ago students. mr. speaker, time does not describe to fully richard's many other contributions. suffice it to say richard smith of this high ng honor the nccu alumni alumni ion 2017 founders lifetime achievement award. m proud of richard smith and thank him for his extraordinary work. i ask my colleagues to join me congratulating this great american hero. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina eek recognition?
without objection, the ntlelady is recognized for one minute. you, mr. speaker. 118,000, the number of people n my district alone who lozz health care if trumpcare passes. 250, the number of people who join me for north carolina town monday in charlotte. ms. adams: zero, the number of public hearings the senate has trumpcare. despite the potential for 22 their people who lose health care if trumpcare passes, senator mcconnell hasn't asked to hear from any of them. held a town hall where my constituents shared their stories and asked that i share them with you. a mother of 3-year-old with autism relies on medicaid health care. he's she's terrified without health care her son wouldn't et the treatment he needs. unique, ies aren't 39% of children rely on
medicaid for their care. 35% are cuts the program by 2036. our constituents are begging for help. it's our responsibility to them. or i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. house resolution 440 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the on ittee of the whole house the state of the union for h.r. r consideration of 2810. will the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson, kindly resume the chair. e chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on student for further consideration of h.r. 2810 which the clerk will report by tight. e clerk: bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military activities of the department of defense and construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose on
2017, a july 13, second set of amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, had disposed of. in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in ouse report 115-217. amendment n order to number 17 considered in house report number 115-217. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? designee of the the the gentlewoman from florida, i have a mefpblgt the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. e clerk: amendment number 17 printed in house report number 15-217, offered by mr. byrne of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 440, the gentleman a alabama, mr. byrne, and member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. . byrne: thank you, this straightforward and bipartisan amendment would provide important clarity for the reek re-creation of maritime as relates to workers'
compensation coverage. for decades federal law stated dividuals who build, dismantle, or repair recreational vessels less than feet could be covered under state workers' compensation law instead of the federal workers' and harbor compensation act. under the congress' controlled by the democrats in 2009, the simplified by eliminating the size mitation, which allowed more employers to purchase state workers' compensation. unfortunately, in 2011, the partment of labor issued a burdensome and confusing rule creating a new definition of vessel.onal this change contradicted legislation maffed by this ngress in 2009 and effectively denied recreational vessel repair workers access to affordable state workers' compensation insurance. this regulatory confusion and reducing access to affordable workers' mpensation policies and also hurting the overall industry. l repair
our bipartisan amendment increases strong protections to ensure that no vessel used for commercial or military purposes inappropriately accepted from the federal requirements. this amendment would provide relief for small businesses, including those in coastal alabama, while also workers the maritime receive the protections they need. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. the gentleman from connecticut claim time in opposition? >> do i. is chair: the gentleman recognized for five minutes. mr. courtney: i rise in opposition to this amendment by my good ed friend from alabama, mr. byrne. this is st note that an amendment that's been around last couple congresses and the to carve out is a larger exemption from the longshoremen's act, which is a goes back to 1927. that's the that if intent, the language of this amendment actually is like a chain saw th nstead of a scalpel. while carving out a larger
emption for recreational vessels beyond 55 feet long, basically there is a whole eries of coast guard rules and regulations that have been, again, enforced by the coast many years that this amendment, unfortunately, is oing to sweep up and undermine. including the rules related to onboard vessels, waste management, coast guard nspection categories, vessel sales to nonu.s. citizens, tonnage tax, and safety management systems. is out there every single day making sure that these rules, which really -- protect our ports. make sure particularly foreign paying per yachts are their fair share in terms of he cost of the environmental protection and boating safety are enforced. amendment will undermine. that's why last year the coast guard issued a statement the fact that
because of the broad sweep of the language of this amendment, really undermining some coast sions that the guard has been doing for decades for the american people. that at the note outset, again obviously there is another issue which is just significant, which is undermining the longshoremen's act, which goes back to calvin oolidge. it recognizes the fact that the folks who are engaged in activity but shipyard construction are of ed in a high-risk type occupation. and the longshoremen's act was that state workers' compensation commissions because they varied p and down in terms of protections required a federal minimum standard. something really that has obviously width stood the test of time over the last 0 years. again, if you look at the data, eople were involved in shipyard work.
their risk of injury is much higher than many other occupations. proud representative from a district that has the second argest employment level in shipbuilding, according to american shipbuilding stosheation, these folks are dealing with -- association. these folks are dealing with equipments, and parts that are higher risk than even aerospace or other forms manufacturing. again i think what we ought to do is stick to the coast guard finition of what a recreational vessel is because that's been on the books for many years. something that i think all of us should listen closely to in terms of evaluating this amendment. think also we should build a that we can great american shipbuilding sector in this country for commercial and recreational we should not do it on the backs of worker protection. with that, again, i reserve the alance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. he gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: and i appreciate the
gentleman. in reciate his leadership the industry. these are recreational vessel companies. they are small companies doing types hings on different of vessels than the one that is mr. courtney and i are typically working together on. trying to apply the same rules when it's a completely to what activity we're usually talking about very large ships doesn't make sense. traditionally been a democrat amendment. i always supported it. i'm happy to support it today. would like us to continue our tradition of bipartisanship on this issue. i reserve the balance of my time. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from connecticut. r. courtney: i yield two minutes from a colleague from a another great shipbuilding district but the ranking member work force tion and committee, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. scott: thank you. mr. chairman, i rise in pposition to this amendment. the amendment shifts workers who repair super yachts and watercraft out of coverage under the longshoremen
and harbor workers act on to under the workers' compensation. it doesn't just amend the act, it rather creates the problem with the coast guard law. the oast guard has opposed identical amendment last year because it creates widespread damage to the coast guard and enforcement authorities. implicates u.s. treaty ligations and could affect collection of tonnage taxes on foreign vehicles. the department of labor also amendment because it could lead to uncertainty and foster litigation under the longshoremen coverage. moreover, by shifting workers out of longshoremen into the workers comp laws such as florida, it could impoverish workers. last year the florida supreme court held that the florida was rs' compensation law so anemic it was unconstitutional. provide al is to reasonable insurance rates, it should be in the insurance complicating the coast guard -- complicating
and epartment of labor denying workers their benefits under the longshoremen's compensation act. on this ge a no vote amendment. and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: we have heard nothing from the coast guard opposition to this amendment. in years past i think the gentlemen are correct. we heard from them. heard no we opposition. in fact, a recreation vessel as a repaired is the same recreation vessel being manufactured and used as a be ic vessel and should treated the same in law. the coast guard also enforces whether that determine a vessel is recreational and forces those who would unlawfully use them. i suggest to gentleman this is not something the coast guard opposes. reserve. the chair: the gentleman from has the only time remaining. back.rne: i yield the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 18 printed in house report 115-217. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. hunter: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in house report 115-217 offered by mr. hunter of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 440, the gentleman from california, mr. hunter, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. hunter: mr. chairman, thank you very much. this important amendment would help safeguard u.s. courts. it simply clarifies where the claim must be brought when the case has no meaningful connection to the united states. specifically, the amendment limits the ability of foreign crewmembers working on foreign ships in foreign waters to sue in u.s. courts when a remedy is
available in their home country or the country on the ship of which they served. if no such remedy is available abroad, the amendment would allow those crewmembers to file suit in the united states, assuming they could meet the same burden needed to file any other suit. to be clear, again, this amendment no in way restricts foreign crewmember's access to judicial relief if they are injured or suffer damages working on a foreign vessel. it simply says they need to seek relief in their home country or the home country of the vessel which they served on before seeking relief in u.s. courts. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. who claims time in opposition? the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this anti-pernicious labor amendment that would make it easier for u.s. owned to exploit and --
the right for sea fairers to seek injuries for damages while at sea has been part of u.s. maritime law. the effect of this amendment is clear it would restrict foreign seafarers employed on foreign flag crew ships -- expenses related to personal injury, death in u.s. court. this provision is contrary to a general maritime law principle that's been around since at least the 12th century. a principle that's remained applicable because of the international nature of shipping and the plain fact even today ship operators maintain leverage over seafarers. this violates international convention that the u.s. ratified. under the ship owners liability convention, international laws and regulations have been interpreted and enforced to ensure quality treatment to seafarers, irrespective of nationality, domicile or race.
this amendment would shred that international obligation. it is also contrary to the principles in terms defining seafarers rights. it is also worth mentioning that the amendment before us may be unnecessary because in many cases seafarer contracts contain binding arbitration clawses. in any event, it makes no sense to deny access to u.s. courts to foreign seafarers seeking compassion for maintenance and cure claims. the cruise lines can avoid frivolous lawsuits. all they need to do is honor their long standing customary responsibility to pay for the care and recovery of the seafarers they employ when they are ill or injured. no one has provided any evidence, much less compelling evidence to justify the reverse long standing seafarer protections. in the absence of evidence, the house should reject this unwarranted amendment. this vote is purely to injure seafarers, purely to disobey
maritime conventions to which we are a party, purely to disobey the laws of the sea from the 12th century that we have obeyed since we have obtained our independence from england to no purpose other than to help often american-owned, not always, with foreign flagged cruise ship lines. there's no purpose to this amendment. the house should reject this amendment as it has in the past. i urge a no vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. r. hunter: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from florida. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. frankel: today i join with my colleague and friend, representative duncan hunter in offering an amendment to the maritime administration title in the ndaa. the cruise industry, which is a vital source of economic
opportunity for my constituents has come to me with the concerns about lawsuits. it says clogging u.s. courts and make it more difficult to conduct business and create opportunities in my district and elsewhere. i take these concerns seriously and want to help address them. ms. wilson: i want to make sure we are protecting workers, that we don't shut off opportunities for them to be fairly compensated if they're injured or become ill in the course of their employment. the hunter-wilson amendment is intended to do just that. it safeguards u.s. courts against further crowding of court dockets which -- while not denying foreign crew makers remedies. this provision has been passed in the house five times in the past three years and most recently the senate commerce committee included it in the maritime administration -- mr. hunter: mr. chairman, i yield the gentlelady 30
seconds. ms. wilson: authorization bill for f.y. 2017. i want to thank chairman hunter and chairman shuster for their work on this amendment. i urge my colleagues to support the hunter-wilson amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield a minute to the gentleman from washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i associate myself with the remarks of mr. nadler. i think he explained the history of this law very, very well. it's a very basic principle. the people who work on these cruise ships should be compensated and taken care of if they're injured. there's no reason that the cruise line industry cannot afford to do this. to discriminate against people who happen to be from different countries who are working on these ships makes no sense whatsoever. our laws apply to whoever is working on the ships and should continue to do so. this is simply an effort to deny workers' rights from a cruise line industry that can more than afford to take care of the people who work there. these are not easy jobs.
i confess, i have taken one cruise in my life, but the people who work there work very long hours, very hard in very difficult conditions. and if they are injured or sick they should be taken care of. now, as mr. nadler said, the best way to do that is under the current common practice which is the cruise line does take care of them, make sure they get the health care they need until they are back able to work, but if that is not done, the right to sue in court to protect your rights as a worker should not be taken away. i do not believe we have a problem in this country that workers are being too highly compensated and have too many rights. we don't need to take away the few that they have. i urge opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. hunter: mr. chairman, how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from california has 2 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. hunter: very simply -- i recognize myself for the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hunter: very simply, this amendment limits the ability of foreign crewmembers -- foreign crewmembers working on foreign ships in foreign waters to sue
in u.s. courts when a remedy is available in their home countries or the country of the ship on which they serve. that's it. they can still sue. trial lawyers around the world can rejoice because these crewmembers could come back to their home countries and they can sue and sue and sue. they just can't do it in the u.s. if it didn't happen in u.s. waters. it's that simple. and, again, a foreign mariner operating on a foreign ship in foreign or international waters should avail themselves of the courts in their home country or the vessel's home country before using u.s. courts. that's it. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. it sounds nice to say they can go home to their country from which they came, presumably the foreign flag ship operates, but that's not the case. these are often american-owned ships or european-owned ships
and they are flagged in the country of convenience like liberia, panama, wherever, where the worker may have no connection whatsoever, where the ship for that matter has no real connection other than flying the flag of convenience and where there may not be a very decent court system. the custom -- not the custom but the practice has been since before independence it's worked well the entire history of our country that a foreign citizen working on a ship that docks -- a ship that is in the united states if denied -- the maintenance and cure that the ship is supposed to take care of someone in the high sea is denied that in an american court. we have always done this. there has been no showing of hardship whatsoever. yes, some rich cruise line operators would like perhaps to get rid of this obligation, but that's no excuse. this is an anti-labor and
anti-human amendment. it ought to be defeated. i urge its defeat. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, on that i call for "roll call." the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 43 printed in house report 115-217. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask to -- i request the time in support of the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment? mr. mcgovern: i do. i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 43 printed in house report 115-217 offered by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 440, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr.
chairman. i -- mr. chairman, i rise in support of the mcgovern-emmer amendment which would simply create a service medal to be awarded to veterans or their surviving family members in honor of their service or sacrifice to our nation. between 1945 to 1962, about 220,000 members participated in hundreds of nuclear weapons tests. now known as atomic veterans, these g.i.'s were placed in extremely dangerous areas and were constantly exposed to potentially dangerous levels of radiation in performance of their duties. they were sworn to secrecy, unable to even talk to their doctors about their past exposure to radiation. thankfully presidents bill clinton and george h.w. bush recognized the atomic veterans' service and had specialized care and compensation for their harrowing duty. in 2007, great britain, new zealand and australia authorized a medal to honor their atomic veterans who served with the united states.
regrettably, the pentagon remained silent in honoring the service of our atomic veterans. arguing that to do so would diminish the service of other military personnel who are tasked with dangerous missions. mr. chairman, this is a pitiful excuse. tragically, 70% of atomic veterans have already passed away, never received this recognition. they served honorably and they kept a code of silence and most certainly led to -- because of that most certainly led to many of these veterans passing away prema turrill. past administrations and congresses dealt with compensation. we need to honor their faithful service and time is running out and that's what this amendment seeks to do. so i call upon my house colleagues to support this amendment that i along with my colleague from minnesota, mr. emmer, have introduced. we owe it to our veterans to recognize their selfless service to our nation. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to
the gentleman from minnesota, mr. emmer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. emmer: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank my colleague from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for yielding. i appreciate the opportunity to work with him on this important issue. during my time in congress, i've been -- i've been privileged to meet with many of our nation's veterans, the member and women in our armed forces are true heroes and truly the best our nation has to offer. yet, far too often they do not get the recognition and credit they deserve. this is especially true when it comes to our nation's atomic veterans. from 1945 to 1962, nearly a quarter of a million of our service members played a role in the testing of nuclear weapons, earning them the title of atomic veterans. since 1990, our federal government has taken different approaches to try and recognize and thank our atomic veterans, but we have never given official recognition through an award or medal. today, that will change with the support of the men and women in this chamber.
with the mcgovern-emmer amendment, we have an opportunity to finally acknowledge the incredible sacrifice these courageous individuals made more than half a century ago. our amendment will require the department of defense to issue a service medal to the veterans or surviving families of those who participated in above-ground nuclear weapons testing, were part of the u.s. military occupation forces in or around hiroshima and nagasaki before 1946 or were held as p.o.w.'s in or near hiroshima or nagasaki. this has been in the ndaa for the past two years. these veterans left their homes, left their families and put their lives on the line to protect the freedoms and liberties we enjoy each and every day. i'm honored to work with mr. mcgovern and our colleagues here in the house to ensure these brave soldiers get the recognition they deserve. again, i want to thank congressman mcgovern for his efforts on this issue as well as to thank chairman
thornberry, ranking member smith and the entire staff of the house armed services committee for their work on the underlying bill -- on the underlying bill and i urge adoption of this amendment. and i yield back the remainder of my time. . for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i ask nanimous consent to claim time in opposition even though i am not opposed. the chair: without objection, the gentleman virginia tech for minutes. mr. thornberry: i support this am. i supported it in the past. mentioned, just the house has supported it in in each of the last two years. i admire the persistence of the entleman from massachusetts in pursuing this issue. i think it's the right thing to do. unfortunately we have not yet een able to convince our colleagues in each of the last do this. tagon to of no opposition to the
amendment. of no opposition to the amendment. i think the house should continue to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from the gentlema reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank mr. emmer for his support and chairman thornberry and ranking we show th for their support a strong bipartisan vote on this. for a recorded vote because i think we send a signal to the senate we're this and honoring our atomic veterans. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a vote.ed the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider
excuse me.umber -- it is no in order to consider -- for what er purpose does the gentleman from recognition? mr. thornberry: pursuant to amendment offer enblach number 3. the chair: the clerk will esignate the amendment enblach. the clerk: consisting of mendments numbered 16, 49, 54, 62, 6, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, d 71 printed in house report number 115-217, offered by mr. thornberry of texas. pursuant to house resolution 440, the gentleman thornberry, and the gentleman from washington,
mr. smith, each will control 10 points mints. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. is chair: the gentleman recognized for two minutes. mr. wittman: i thank distinguished gentleman for yiege. look forward to enter into a discussion with mr. poliquin. yield to the gentleman from maine. >> i appreciate the willing misof the leadership of the services committee in the sea power subcommittee on both to accept aisle this amendment. mr. poliquin: in it's important underlying s to the bill provision limiting the availability of funds for the ddg 351 class ar destroyers. my revised amendment, mr. speaker, is agreed to by the committee and importantly 351 c additional for scal year 2016 ddg-51 ship from the provisions proposed amendments. and again , sir, agreed to by the committee, it states the sense of congress navy should be the
majority of the share line risk fiscal year 2017 destroyer ht 3 contract which will represent e first ships to integrate the air and missile defense radar which is 30 times more than the and bert legacy radar system. >> reclaiming my time, i thank the gentleman from maine for working with the committee to while the provision maintaining progress fleet.hening our your amendment helps us do just that. . wittman: while ensuring we maintain the health and critical skilled work forces at r two proven vital destroyer shipbuilders, including bath ironworks in maine. i yield to the gentleman from maine. poliquin: thank you. i thank chairman thornberry and airman wittman, mr. speaker, for their support on my important amendment. balance fire works is a
critical national security asset to our country. of great pride for all mainers and the 6,000 of ploys some our most talented, hardworking greatly about re their contributions every day to keeping america safe and keeping america strong. back to the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: i yield back the balance of my time. for what purpose does the gentleman from is recognized. mr. smith: i -- thank you, mr. chairman. to the eld one minute gentlelady from florida, a member of the armed services committee, mrs. murphy. the chair: the gentlelady is for one minute. mrs. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleagues for in this my amendment enblach package. my amendment will authorize procurement technical centers to assist small business owners in pursuing funding opportunities phasings of the fcir and ftr programs. small rograms enable businesses to perform research and development that advances
the national interest and has he potential for commercialization. my central florida district is imed to benefit from these programs since it's home to large and growing number of small firms that harness power produce ogy, innovative products for customers in the public and private sector, and in the create well-paying jobs and generate broad-based economic growth. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. thornberry: i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittenger. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. r. pittenger: i would also like to thank tharme thornberry and chairman sessions for order. y amendment into mr. chairman, my amendment is mple, it prohibits telecommunications companies that provide material support for north korea cyberattacks rom contracting with our defense department. while my amendment is simple in ature, it strikes at the heart of what i believe to be the cornerstone of north korea policy. for far too long china's north korean he government to pursue nuclear
development, global egregious and human rights violations. the chinese government is partner t a good-faith on the issue of new york. for example, there have been multiple public reports largest g that china's has ment affiliated firm been subpoenaed by the commerce department as part of an brokes ation whether it our laws by conducting business with north korea. additionally earlier this year chinese government affiliated firm was hit with a record breaking billion dollar connection with comparable north korea related export violations. is chairman, my amendment one of many steps our congress needs to take to demonstrate to no longer ll tolerate its alliance partnership with north korea. thank you, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from is recognized. mr. smith: i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. from ir: the gentlelady wisconsin is recognized for two
minutes. ms. moore: thank you, so much. you, mr. chairman. want to appreciate the majority for including my amendment in this blach. my amendment is straightforward, mr. chairman. any u.s. strategy must acknowledge and respond to of tremendous suffering civilians. including the millions who have een forced from their homes, who face starvation, cholera, a ck of access to adequate health care and education. not as an afterthought but as active imperative. the trump administration has already used the suffering the use of quems as a reason for expanding u.s. and to ent in syria launch attacks against the syrian government my amendment the administration for a description of the legal authority relied upon or needed of u.s. military force in syria.
formation which is even more critical now given the recent tacks by u.s. forces against the syrian government and that we may continue to syria.re troops into it is foolhardy and unwise for us to think that the suffering eing imposed upon innocent civilians in syria should not any u.s. eration in response or strategy outlining how military forces or aid will be used there. the humanitarian crisis spawned by conflict directly impacts efforts.nal security we ignore it at our own peril. thank you. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i'm pleased to to the minutes distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. thank you, chairman thorn berry. in strong support of the lamborn amendment requiring a report on iran's
use of aircraft to support groups along the middle east. it delivers a simple message to iran, assad, and all companies selling aircraft to the world's leading state ponsor of terrorism. that is congress is watching. watching is watching midnight military e off from bases in iran and war-foreign amascus carrying terrorists, guns, and explosives which will only be used to shed more innocent blood in the syrian war. congress is watching as boeing and airbus shake hands and cut of with former leaders iran's national revolutionary c.e.o. of an airline who is called to estroy u.s. naval ships saying in international waters. congress is watching as iconic american and european companies choosing to fuel iran's terror campaign around the world. . speaker, congress is watching and congress will act to ensure that western companies do not become syrian t in the massacre. please support the lamborn
amendment. i yield back. i thank the chairman. he chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you. i yield two minutes to the the virgin om islands, miss blast ket. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. plaskett: thank you very much. you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for my ement to including amendment en bloc into the ndaa. amendment that we have is a transitioning the virgin he and guard reserve from overseas housing lowance to basic housing allowance for housing. office that in 2013 the of the undersecretary of defense personnel and readiness eported that a change would be feasible and would not be difficult to allow virgin slands' active guard and reserve members to be part of e basic -- to be part of the basic housing allowance. congress didn't intend an and unfair treatment
reserve rd and members. this amendment provides for a disparate treatment of housing allowance. grateful for this support and are thankful our service members will now and their using be treated the same as those in the 50 states and district of columbia. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. thornberry: i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. heist. the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. offered to stand in support of the amendment by. we all know north korea has targeted the united states with cyberattacks and they are well to heir way to being able strike the united states with a conventional and nuclear weapons. would o amendments prohibit the department of defense from contracting with to be companies found complicit with north korean chinese cks or companies found to be providing
support for the north korean regime. that we o reason with be contracting countries who are enemies of the united states. i support the amendment offered y my friend from michigan, mr. bishop. without a doubt nato is the greatest military alliance in alliance but that works most effectively when the members of those various ountries are pulling their weight and fulfilling their commitments as it regards their own defense budgets. calls on the president to encourage nato llies to fulfill their commitments and to recognize those who are currently doing so. wholeheartedly agree with these amendments and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. m pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from in in, mr. nolan. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. chairman, r. members of the house, my first amendment simply declares that authorized in ds
-- to be appropriated in this deploy be used to members of the armed forces to participate in the ongoing civil war in yemen. passing this amendment we ensure that no hero, no patriot in u.s. military uniform will put in harm's way in a conflict that can only be ttled by the parties involved. my second amendment simply cuts so-called any friendly rebels in iraq or yria who make a mockery of our misusing tions by merican arms and resources and far too many instances using them against us. it's time to put a stop to it, time to stop investing in america, the american people so i urge the adoption of these amendments en bloc. i thank you, mr. chairman. i would only add that the president in his last campaign had a message that we need to
embrace and i think this en bloc group of amendments takes us in that direction. he pointed out, we spent $6 trillion in iraq and afghanistan alone. for one of those trillion we could have graduated every kid in america debt-free. for another $1 trillion for your infrastructure for the trains coming off the track and bridges falling down. we could have found a cure for cancer, alzheimer's, diabetes and we still would have had $3 trillion for deficit reduction. i applaud this committee for all the work they are doing and the direction that you are taking us back to to getting us out of these endless wars of choice and start reinvesting in america, the american people and the american infrastructure. that creates good jobs. that creates the quality of life that we embrace and to be sure, we must have a strong national security. there are evil people and evil forces out there that we need to protect ourselves against
but that doesn't mean we have to get involved in every civil war and every war of choice. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i am pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: i want to rise in support of the en bloc amendments and want to thank you for including my amendment in this en bloc package. it would have certain allocations to pakistan by certification by the secretary of defense that pakistan is not using its military or its funds or equipment provided by the united states to repress minority groups and to make sure they repress these minority groups who are seeking their own political or religious freedom. at a time of high budgets we should reserve our aid for friends and allies and end
assistance to pakistan, in particular, which does not meet the standards of decency and freedom that the american people believe are -- have to be part of any decision that we make here. pakistan has acted as an adversary not only to the united states but has been aiding our enemies and repressing its own people. let us not forget that pakistan harbored osama bin laden for -- this is the prime mover of a man who organized the slaughter of 3,000 americans. we are fools if we continue to support a regime like that in pakistan today that represses its own people and is using what we give them to actually do things that make us less safe as a people and put us in jeopardy with the terrorists around the world. i thank the chairman for including my en bloc amendment. my amendment to the en bloc amendment.
the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of the armed services committee, mr. moulton. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moulton: mr. speaker, i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for including this amendment in the en bloc package because i remain concerned about the lack of a clear plan or strategy in syria. as a syrian opposition supported by u.s. and coalition forces, fight to liberate raqqah from isis control, we are confronted with the complex and critical question of what comes next. freeing syrians from the brutality of isis is but one part of a complex grinding civil war that began with the assad regime's heinous violence against civilians and has endured for over six years with over 400,000 syrians killed, six million syrians displaced within syria and over 4.5 million forced to flee as refugees. we now have over 500 u.s. troops deployed to syria to advise and assist syrian
opposition forces. however, we have yet to have a clear, comprehensive political strategy that describes what the end goals are for u.s. involvement and how we hope to achieve those goals. this amendment requires just that and follows a similar effort i led with general and representative don bacon on iraq that received bipartisan support in the armed services committee last year. this amendment requires a comprehensive political and military strategy for u.s. policy in syria to be submitted by the departments of defense and state to congress and the american people within 90 days of enactment. we owe it to our troops, those young men and women whom we asked to risk their lives in syria today to tell them what their job is, what it entails, what the end goal is and why it is worth the risks that they take every single day. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker, for yielding and for your great work leading us on the ndaa. and i'd like to address two amendments that are coming up in en bloc packages. first of all, on iron. my amendment to the ndaa number 361 requires the president, along with various agencies, to provide the house with the report regarding iran's use of commercial aircraft for illicit activities. i'm doing it with representative roskam. think tanks such as the foundation for defense of democracies and the american enterprise institute have demonstrated the need for the intelligence community to provide congress with the report of their activities. air, l, iran air, maham and iranian air force operated 400 flights from iran to syria since the iran nuclear deal was adopted on july 14, 2015.
now, this report does not block the sale of commercial aircraft to iran but asks the intelligence community to take a serious look at these sales so congress can determine if they should continue. the other amendment i'd like to address, mr. chairman, is number 364 on boost base missile defense. and i thank the chair for including this amendment which was co-sponsored by mr. kinzer, mr. hunter, mr. franks and mr. wilson from south carolina to advanced boost face missile defense programs. as you know, ballistic missiles are at their most defenseless when they're in their boost phase, the initial states of flight. they are at their slowest and they have not yet deployed decoys and countermeasures that would make it more difficult to shoot them down in later phases of flight. so this amendment will make americans safer as we move towards advancing this absolutely critical technology. thank you, mr. chairman, and i
yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. we have -- mr. chairman, we have no further speakers on this amendment and i would reserve our time at this point. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, neither do we on this en bloc package. mr. smith: then i will yield back the balance of our time. mr. thornberry: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: i offer amendments en bloc number 4. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the chair: amendments number 7 79, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 86, 87, 2, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90 and 91 printed in
house report 115-217 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 440, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman mac thornberry for your extraordinary leadership. thank you for allowing me to speak on amendment number 76. we have seen a clear rise in ow terrorist groups used propaganda and sophisticated messaging to recruit new members, execute attacks and raise funds. these violent extremist organizations represent a new type of threat to the united states and our families and we must identify how existing agencies should work together to address the threat. this amendment requires the president to submit a comprehensive interagency
strategy for countering violent extremist groups that pose a threat to american families or their interests. any plan would identify how to counter the violent messaging, combat terrorist financing, support existing law enforcement activities, support counterradicalization organizations and offer military support. additionally, the amendment provides for accountability by requiring an annual assessment of the progress made implementing and achieving the strategy. the time is now to bring a whole government approach to combat violent extremism. this strategy will serve a vital -- this strategy will serve a vital role in this effort. mr. chairman, i urge passage of this amendment in the en bloc package. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. wilson: i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: we have no speakers. we reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas.
mr. thornberry: i yield to the gentleman from west virginia, one minute, mr. jenkins. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. jenkins: my amendment authorizes the increase of the counterdrug program by $10 million. for 30 years the national guard has successfully performed drug interdiction and counterdrug activities to support our local communities and our national security. the national guard partners with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and community organizations to effectively combat the supply and demand for illegal drugs. the national guard counterdrug program works. in the past four years, the west virginia national guard successfully seized more than 500 million dollars of illegal drugs. black market drugs that are devastating our communities and towns, and as our nation copies with the devastating drug
epidemic, we must fund programs to stop drug trafficking and keep drugs out of our communities. for more than a decade, congress has consistently provided funding above the budget request. it's important we continue that support. thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks for your hard working staff that helped -- hardworking staff that helped make this amendment possible. i urge adoption of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, compounds, psoa have been found in public and private drinking water wells in communities surrounding over 600 military installations nationwide. including several in my own district impacting 70,000 pennsylvanians. while the military does not
dispute its responsibility for the water contamination, the response thus far has been unacceptable. for all our constituents, they have the right to safe, clean drinking water and they deserve have if pfoa compromised their long-term health. my amendment instructs the secretary of defense to consult with the agency for toxic substances and disease registry to carry out a study on any health effects experienced by at exposed to pfoa military installations. while this study will not fix water contamination, it will provide us with critical information about the health pact these unrelated chemicals they may to reverse the contamination and protect he health and wellwelfare of our residents. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from
washington. mr. smith: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i'm pleased at this point to yield a minute to the distinguished gentleman from texas, judge poe. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, pakistan has been supporting all kinds of terrorist groups for years, including those with american blood on their hands. but instead of penalizing pakistan, the government has been rewarding them with hundreds of millions of dollars in u.s. aid. some of that money goes to support terrorists. previously we placed conditions on money to pakistan but this is focused on pakistan cracking down on one network, the haqqani network. they have helped the taliban and -- in afghanistan. my amendment, number 100, places a new condition on any aid to pakistan. the condition requires the administration to certify that pakistan is not providing
military, financial or logistical support to any terrorist operating in pakistan or afghanistan. this forces pakistan to make a long overdue choice -- either go after terrorists or lose millions of dollars of american aid, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield at this point two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, chairman thorn bury, for your eadership. the north atlantic treaty organization was formed in the ashes of world war ii beginning considerable peace and prosperity. still there are powers today that wish to challenge the which millions throughout the world have benefited. my amendment to the ndaa, is a nt 98, straightforward and simple amendment. allies to l on
fulfill their mutual defense terests, and recognize our allies who are achieving those objectives. steps erlying bill takes to strengthen our national defense on many fronts t improves our overseas operations, provides significant resources to rebuild our milltary, and increases funding for russian s to deter aggression. my amendment builds upon those principles. to rebuild our military capability, it is time for our allies to do the same. pertains to n it our nato alliance. for far too long the united unequal shared an financial burden in contributing to the global and regional security that nato w new challenges from an -- provides. with new challenges from a state, instability across the middle east and north africa, and emerging threats, it's time for all allies to honor invest in ment and defense spending. in order for nato to be all nato effective,
members must meet their g.d.p. commitment for defense spending nd investment. this is out of fairness, our forts to evanly share this responsibility and fairness to the american taxpayers. my amendment calls on the demand that our nato allies honor their mutual defense commitment they agree by committing 2% of their gross domestic product to defense spending and research their national and regional security interests. only five of the 29 member currently honor those economiesments. while 24 nato members fail to those commitments. my amendment also recognizes those. lies who achieve full commit frment our nato allies will make a notable difference in our effort to the globe. e around we must share equally the necessary burden of peace through strength. i ask my colleagues to support t. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from virginia controls the time for the washington.om mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. we continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. chairman, i
would inform the gentleman i have no further speakers on at this oc package point. mr. scott: we yield back. mr. thornberry: i yield back. is on ir: the question the amendments en bloc offered the gentleman from texas, those in favor will vote aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the en bloc mendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, to h.res. 440, i offer amendments en bloc number 5. the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number five nsisting of amendments 93, 94, 95, 96, entleman from, 7, 98, 99, 1100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 house report number 115-217, offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 440, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and
the gentleman from washington, smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. chairman, i would inform my friend from washington at this point i have en bloc rs on this package and would be prepared to yield back unless he has peakers. mr. smith: with the chairman's indulgence i would like a speech in support of he bill. i'll wait for that. we don't have any speakers. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield back the balance of my time. rge support. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the en bloc amendments are agreed . for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? r. thornberry: mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 440, i offer amendments en bloc number 6. the clerk will designate will designated the amendments en bloc. the clerk: consisting of 109, ents number 108,
115, 11, 112, 113, 114, 120, and 18, 119, 121 printed in house report by mr. 5-217, offered thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 440, the gentleman mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. recognizes gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the ntleman from ohio, mr. davidson. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. thornberry: i rise in pport of my amendment number 80 as part of an en bloc package. my amendment encourages between the .a.a. and d.o.d. on aircraft systems. so the f.a.a. may leverage the unique capabilities and d.o.d.s of the these are important activities as the f.a.a. moves forward ith incorporating unmanned systems into the national airspace. the efforts highlighted in my mendment are already ongoing
between f.a.a. and d.o.d. more work needs to be done as a 2014 joint report to congress. the air force research at ratory located wright-patterson air force ase, in particular has expertise in these and avoid technologies. planning to conduct research activities at springfield, research activitie springfield, ohio's air national guard base in ohio's eighth district aupon approval. -- upon approval. i'm proud of our air men and/or amendment to help the f.a.a. to make good use of the apabilities located there. i also rise in support of my amendment number 120 as part of package.ng en bloc amendment is critical for reclaims hat congress its -- mr. thornberry: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. davidson: my amendment is for ensuring congress
reclaims its war making powers for hibiting funding military operations in yemen ot in compliance with the 2001 aumf. i'm concerned about any u.s. operations in yemen. scope of utside the aumf and have no identifiable authorization from congress. my amendment is very simple. if the military operation is aumf and have no the 2001 aumf, it is permissible. authorized by congress, it is permissible. working with to to olleagues and the senate ensure this is included in the final ndaa conference report. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to -- to ensure this is included in the final ndaa conference i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i want to urge support of this bill. to begin by thanking the chairman and all of the members of the committee as has been times, this is the
most bipartisan committee in congress. i think once again even in circumstances we proved that this year. that is in large part due to e leadership of chairman thornberry. i thank him for that. i also thank four staff which job. n unbelievable there are hundreds if not thousands of amendments that come at them. that. nage you see the very few that actually come through either in floor.ee or on the they work through literally thousands of ideas and do an amazing job. want to thank our staff for their great work. in particular i want to thank , this will be her last markup. she's retiring. fabulous job for our staff. and she basically exemplifies just said of how great our staff s how they work in a bipartisan manner and do a serve our contry. thank you, vicky, for your incredible service to our committee and the country. think this is a good bill that we should support. mistake about it. what the chairman and many others have said is true. environment.plex
national security is at risk. i take mr. nolan from minnesota's point that spending a lot of money on wars we didn't need to engage in does home.s at that point is valid. but so is the point that we ace threats that we must confront. north korea, they are testing intercontinental ballistic issiles. it is no doubt that their goal is to develop a nuclear missile of striking the u.s. being from the west coast, they always national security is at risk. say it could hit seattle, i don't know why they don't talk about any other city on the west coast, it could hit a lot of different places, we need to worry about that. we need to be prepared to stop that. undermine inues to not just our elections but democracy itself. across europe and even down in middle east and africa. we need to be prepared to confront that. terrorist threat. p 9/11 killed 3,000 people in this country because we weren't to prevent it. the groups that supported that away. have not gone
they have metastasized. i will agree with some of my on left who think the terrorism threat is often overblown. also a t is often mistake to demonize the muslim religion. en though i know some people don't do that, they simply want to confront groups like al steve ban none -- bannon, has said that islam a totalitarian ideology of subjugation. it is not a religion. he thinks all muslims are a reat to the extent that we adopt a national security policy that views the world that way, we make the problem worse. that's what isis wants, that's what al qaeda wants. want a clash of civilizations. we should not want that. hey have killed more muslims than any other religion on earth. muslims have the biggest stake in this. must work with them not
against them to confront that terrorist threat that isis and al qaeda and others present. on the broader budget issue, as i mentioned a couple times, the first six months of this year we had a number of folks in the pentagon come over with them no against them to confront that terrorist threat that isis and al qaeda and and spell of nightmare scenarios about every bad thing that could happen. some of the ones i mentioned. of others i haven't. and i understand that. that's their job. about ob is to worry what could come at us. past a certain point that isn't helpful. e need a plan. we need a strategy to confront this. and we need to make choices. that's the one thing that i am still concerned about this bill. doesn't make choices. it continues to spend money in a variety of different places ithout a recognition of finite resources and choice that is need to be made about how to are ont the threats that most dangerous to us. how to spend that money in the best way possible. that's something that i think to work on going forward. problem ave the budget that i described. i won't give the same full speech i gave before. but i'll simplify it and say
a consensus in congress anti-country that we need to balance the budget taxes and sing without wut cutting any programs that people might like. that doesn't work. not possible. it doesn't add up. that's why we don't have a budget resolution. that the resolution republican congress could put to meet or will fail some of the promise that is they and others have made. we got to be honest about that again, is bill, $72 billion over the budget caps. over tually $91 billion the budget caps if you add in -- sorry, $81 billion in budget money we u add in the took from o.c.o. to put into the base. the budget aise caps this goes away and leaves us once again in the land of the department of defense. we have to make choices on the budget goes forward so we don't department in se the lurch not knowing how much money that they are going to have. so we still don't have a budget us.lution in front of lastly, i do want to point out that the rest of the budget does matter. had a irman and i have
little argument about this. we're the armed services committee, we should pay that.ion to don't sacrifice our troops for the sake of domestic -- he always say political priorities. one word in your argument i find not appropriate. there is nothing political bout it. it's a policy choice. it is basically deciding what domestic priorities are important. make no mistake about it. the discretionary budget is a zero sum game. yesterday the president's budget. $54 billion plus up for $54 billion cut from nondefense discretionary. don't tell me that one thing oesn't have anything to do with the other. even the so-called budget resolution, the budget agreement that the house have come up with but not yet dared to put to a $72 billion plus up r defense and a $5 billion cut for domestic spending. so again, the two are absolutely connected. we talking about with domestic spending? i won't go through all of it. ll just mention a couple
things. yesterday i mentioned our infrastructure. bridges are collapsing across the country. i saw a big story yesterday memorial bridge is about to fall down. we have incredible that lead re needs to the strength of our country. at are connected just like national defense is the strength of this nation. nother example, the cancer research center is close to my district, in seattle, is doing incredible research right now. figured out how to not use chemotherapy, go in take out white blood cells not working, get them to work, send em in and successfully fight cancer. this has worked for blood cancers. they just started studies on cancer. basically we could cure cancer without going through the hell f chemo. the president's budget would funding by chin's over 2/3. is 't think curing cancer a political agenda. that is a very real need that an incredible impact on the
lives of americans just like national security. just like making sure that with korea doesn't hit us a nuclear weapon. making sure that terrorist groups don't attack us. uring cancer, stopping bridges from collapsing, these are priorities. and becomes we're not making are t choices, these priorities that get pushed aside. if you plus up defense and take nondefense discretionary, then you are having that very real impact. i'm not going to say it has to dollar for dollar. i think it probably should be, ut we can negotiate around that. but simply gut the nondefense scretionary budget, the plus up defense does not make this country samplete we heard yesterday, in a time of war, domestic sacrifices. we have allred about world war red about ve all world war ii. you know what else you do in ime war? you don't cut taxes you raise them. prior to 2001, we had never raising ar without taxes or issuing war bonds or basically asking for money. we cannot do.
enough ill say i care about the national security of this country, i would raise taxes to pay for it. instead of simply adding to the the ability opping of somebody like the fred hutch cancer research center from finding a cure for cancer. would he choice that i make. lastly the nondefense discretionary budget is the state department, usaid, if you are going to have a national security strategy it just can't be the military. you know who will tell thaw more often than anybody, the military. they don't want to bear the entire burden. general -- secretary mattis had the best quote on this, if you are going to cut diplomacy, development, you better give me four more divisions because that's how many wars i have to fight. to say defense is so important and if you are against it because of other priorities then you just don't care about
the troops is incredibly disingenuous because all of these other things matter to the national security of this country and all we're getting out of the majority right now is an effort to plus up defense at the expense of everything else. i say an effort because they haven't actually voted on it and it hasn't actually happened. it's more likely than not this bill, good though it is and the great work that's been done on a number of different policy provisions that don't have anything to do with the money, the good thing on acquisition reform so try to get more for the money we spend, all of that is in jeopardy because this bill has at least $72 billion in it over the budget caps that is more likely than not not going to be there come october 1 or the end of this year. so if we don't make the choices on the budget that reflect the priorities of the entire country, that actually reflect the budget numbers, then we are doing a disservice to the men and women who serve our country. it's a good bill. it's going to be better once we figure out the budget issues
and actually start making the choices that are necessary to make us stronger in every aspect of society. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i fully agree with the gentleman from washington when he expresses his appreciation to the members of our committee. each one of the 62 members of our committee has contributed to the bill that is here before us today, and as the chair knows, we have had more amendments considered over the last three days than ever before for a defense authorization bill. and so members of the whole body have contributed in many ways. and i also agree with the gentleman that our staff on both sides of the aisle led by paul have done a terrific job in helping to manage this
process and to shape and guide what's been historic levels of interest by members on particular provisions. i think, mr. chairman, that you would find among our committee virtually if not unanimous agreement on two points. one is we live in an increasingly dangerous world and the second one is, we've done deep damage to our military because of the budget cuts, the continuing resolutions, the erratic nature of funding over the last few years. certainly the members of our committee who go out and actually talk to the people who serve have heard, seen, witnessed firsthand airplanes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, training that has -- we are , movers trying to save money for the military so we're hiring cut rate movers and members of the
military are experiencing incredible damage to their household goods as they are shuffled about from place to place involuntarily. sometimes there are movers with criminal records that can't get on the military base that they are supposed to be delivering to. example after example how these cuts have affected the men and women that serve. as secretary mattis said, the reason we are doing so well around the world is because they have sucked it up and borne the burden. deep damage that this bill starts to reverse, and i appreciate all the members who support fixing our planes, getting the training, having ships that sail and the other -- better missile defense, all the things that are in this bill. i'm not going to engage in a detailed discussion about the budget. the gentleman and i discussed this -- discuss this
frequently. i would just say, mr. chairman, i believe the first obligation of the federal government is to defend the country. article 1, section 8 says congress has the power and the responsibility to raise and support armies, provide and maintain navies, provide the rules and regulations for the military forces of the united states. that's our job and i think that's our first job. so i agree that some of the cuts that have been proposed in other domestic programs, discretionary programs are inappropriate, and we ought to evaluate each of them on their merits and that continues to be my point when it comes to defense. we evaluate our obligations to the country and to the men and women who serve based on the merits of this argument. we don't tie it to other domestic programs. we do not say we're only going to increase defense to fix our planes if we can increase the e.p.a. an equal amount. we don't tie it to other
things. the obligations to the men and women who risk their lives stand on their own, and that, at least in my view, is our first obligation. now, when we start talking about budgets, we get into all sorts of conversation it's about how mandatory spending is really where more than 2/3 of the budget is, how that's what's been growing, how defense is down to about 16% of the budget and as it's been shrinking, the deficit's been going up. obviously defense is not the issue -- not the cause when it comes to deficits. we can also when we talk about tax start talking about economic growth and this lackluster growth that the economy has suffered, at least over the last eight years, and the need to get things going to help with the deficits. lots of issues to discuss. but the issue before us today is how we fulfill our responsibilities to the men and women who serve and to the country that's relying on us to protect them from missiles, to help protect them from
terrorist attacks, to support the men and women who are actually performing those missions. i think this bill advances that cause. a number of members on both sides of the aisle have contributed to it. i think and hope it deserves the support of most all members of the house and i yield back and urge support for this en bloc package. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. it is now in order to consider mendment number 122 printed in house report 115-217. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? mrs. maloney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 122 printed in house report 115-217 offered by ms. tenney of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 440, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. tenney, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.
the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. tenney: thank you, mr. chairman. my constituents are discouraged. they're fed up with political elites who have failed to represent them and with special interest groups who too often put impractical dogma before practical policy. in the rust belt region i represent in upstate new york, the impact of this has been devastating. devastating job losses, economic stagnation and the massive migration of people and jobs, the largest in the ation. decline has spurred a host of other problems. in light of all this i was elected to congress with a strong mission to reverse the tide and to revitalize our upstate communities to the greatness and innovation they once experienced. i'm the voice for my constituents who have been left behind and i'm fighting to bring my district back to economic revival.
my amendment achieves both. there's nothing new or groundbreaking about my amendment. simply put, it reinstates a domestic sourcing provision for stainless steel flatware that was in law for 30 years without issue. my amendment adds stainless steel flat dills ware into the berry amendment. it was covered under berry. however, the provision was removed in 2006 after oneida limited, the only berry manufacture left. in the void came cheryl manufacturing, a company in my district that since 2008 has roduced 100% american-made flatware. and since 2008, cheryl has been among the top providers to the department of defense and g.s.a., fulfilling more than $6.8 million in federal
contracts over an eight-year period. all of these are being produced in the formerly closed factory using refurbished oneida limited equipment and providing jobs for many of the same employees who lost their jobs after decades of service to that same closed factory. in fact, g.s.a. has repeatedly found cheryl flatware to be found at fair and reasonable prices which is why the agency already purchases flatware from cheryl, independent of any sourcing requirement. some domestic sourcing requirements may raise cost. no evidence has been submitted to support the claim that my amendment will do that. this should delay any concerns that taxpayers should be on the hook for overly expensive flatware should my amendment be adopted. but if it isn't enough then there's this. my amendment retains all existing waivers under berry which means if cheryl's flatware becomes too expensive is of poor quality or insufficient quality, d.o.d.
can find other sources. ultimately, mr. chairman, whenever we can create domestic sourcing opportunities that reduce our military's dependence on imported goods and strengthen domestic supply chains without significantly raising procurement costs we should and this is what my amendment does. reinstating the berry amendments domestic sourcing requirement represents a clear continuity in federal procurement policy, not a stark divurgens. as i said, this -- divergens. as i said, this provision was in effect for 30 years. there is one berry compliant manufacture that -- manufacturer that happens to be in my district. we hope many producers returns to the united states where their businesses were founded to provide robust competition. i support this amendment for the simple reason it's good policy. it gives a leg up to robust domestic supply chain that expands five states. moreover, for the 30-year history of the berry amendment's flatware provision,
there was only ever one domestic producer. under the berry amendment, this is all that is required and in cheryl's case we know it is a producer that has a track record that offers flatware at market rates. mr. chairman, in districts like mine across the country, in -- that have rusted out factories that line the landscapes of far too many of my communities, today we have an opportunity to fix this problem and restore the once great empire state and our nation to the manufacturing strength it once enjoyed. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure and i yield my time to my colleague from illinois, mr. lipinski for some time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 25 seconds. mr. lipinski: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment and want to make one thing perfectly clear. american taxpayers want their tax dollars to go to put
americans to work. this amendment means buy american and hire american. i just want to be clear. we hear a lot about buy american, hire american. this is what this amendment would do, and i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady's time has expired. any member claim time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i oppose -- i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i have tremendous respect and admiration for the gentlelady from new york and her efforts to represent her district, her people and try to make life better. it kind of relates to some of the conversations mr. smith and i were having about tax policy, about industrial policy, about regulations, about how we have in this country become less competitive internationally than we should.
however, i must oppose this amendment because the bottom line is it is not a matter of national security whether d. -- where d.o.d. buys its knives and forks and spoons. this amendment -- members needed further evidence of a wide range of issues we deal with in the defense authorization act, this bill is a key example. i think the gentlelady accurately described the history. the berry amendment was passed in 1940 to make sure that we had the food and textiles procured from the united states to support our military efforts. in the 1970's they put in a specialty metals provision and attached to that was a comma that said, including flatware. . hen it turned out there wasn't anybody at home that made flatware and d.o.d. came to us than a decade ago and said would you please get rid of
that portion of the berry amendment, and we did. now the question is, are we ing to start adding back items which s of d.o.d. may buy and say you can one place, from whether or not it is critical to our country's national security. mentioned that g.s.a. is buying some spoons knives and so forth from this manufacturer. that's great. we do, i hope that happens hope more jobs come from her district. but to put into federal law that the only place the department of defense can buy its knives and forks and spoons this one company, i think starts to get us into of industry's -- of industries and takes us of this the focus bill which should be the
troops. hat's the best thing for them. th all my admiration for the gentlelady, i oppose this amendment. we cannot go down the road of after category after category of items to help districts at the expense of our troops and the best use of matter hen it's not a of vital national security. don't think that the nives and forks we use qualify as vital national security. i oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in 115-217 on number
which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. 13 by mr. mber arizona. amendment number 15 by mr. lamborn arizona. amendment number 15 by mr. lamborn of colorado. amendment number 17 by mr. brown of alabama. amendment number 17 by mr. bunt hunter of california. amendment number 43 by mr. massachusetts. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any lectronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on printed in ber 13 house report 115-217 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice ote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13, printed in in use report 115-217 house repor 115-217, offered by mr. franks of arizona. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request will rise and te be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by
the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. the chair wishes to inform the body that we are about to enter two-minute votes. please respect the membership and vote within the two-minute vote as we continue from this point. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15 printed in house report 115-217 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 115-217 offered by mr. lamborn of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes
by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the unfinished business is the recorded vote on amendment number 17 printed in house report 115-217 by the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne, on which further proceedings were postponed and the recorded vote on amendment number 17 printed in vote. the the clerk will designate the amendment. he clerk: amendment number 17, printed in house report number 15-217, offered by mr. byrne of alabama. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. request support of the for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 244. the nays are 181. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the quest for recorded vote on amendment number 18 printed in house report number 115-217 by the gentleman from california, on which further were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in house report number 115-217, offered by mr. hunter california. the chair: recorded voting having been requested, those in support of the request for rise and be will counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned
on amendment number 43 printed house report 115-217 by gentleman from mass marks mr. govern, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. redesignated the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 43 printed in house report number 115-217, offered by mr. of massachusetts. the chair: recorded vote having been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is order. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 424. the nays are zero. the amendment is is adopted. there being no further amendments under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the medicare of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under h.r. eration the bill 208.
pursuant to house resolution 0, reports the bill as amended by house resolution 431 back to the house with further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. rule, the previous question is ordered. a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the amendments are agreed . on engrease n is grossment and third reading of the bill. my, those opposed, no. -- those in favor will vote aye. those opposed, no. the clerk: for military of the department of defense and for military onstruction to prescribe military personnel for fiscal year and for other purposes. the eaker pro tempore: ouse will come to order. the house will come to order. o that we can proceed. please take conversations off.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the entlewoman from opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in the current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. he clerk will report the notion. kwloip miss lujan grisham of new mexico moves to recommit e bill to the committee on armed service was instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the amendment. at the end of subtitle c of following sert the new section, 1039, section of construction regarding use of the department of defense funding of a border wall. funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or otherwise made available for 2018 for the department of defense may be used to plan, develop, or barriers, ny including walls or fences, border international of the united states.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady cannot be recognized until the house is in order. the gentlewoman is recognized now for five minutes. ms. lujan grisham: thank you. mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. the national defense authorization act has passed congress 56 years in a row. and that is a testament to the collaborative, bipartisan work the armed services committee has done to support our troops who put themselves in harm's way every single day to defend our country. this year the house armed services committee adopted an amendment introduced by congressman galle gmbing o to ensure -- gallego to ensure none of the funds meant to support our troops and safeguard our nation's security can be used for building president trump's border wall. the amendment was debated,
amended, and ultimately adopted without objection by every single member of the armed services committee. if you ask the people who know the border the best, whether it's companies, lawmakers, border communities, trade groups, economists or law enforcement officials, both republicans and democrats, most agree that building a wall is unnecessary, impractical, ineffective and, frankly, a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. furthermore, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. the house will not proceed until the house comes to order. if you feel the need to have conversations, we just kindly ask that you take them off the floor.
the gentlelady may proceed. ms. lujan grisham: thank you, mr. speaker. furthermore, the united states already maintains approximately 650 miles of border fence in areas that most effectively stop the unauthorized entry of people, vehicle, drugs, arms, and other elicit items. instead of a costly border wall between the u.s. and mexico, the armed services committee chose to fully fund military health care, raise the pay of military personnel, and improve our nation's cybersecurity. they agreed that president trump's ongoing effort to build a wall is wasteful and has absolutely nothing to do with advancing u.s. and national security interests. i want to emphasize, this amendment incorporated both democratic and republican ideas and passed unanimously in a bipartisan manner. but late tuesday night, house
republican leadership stripped congressman gallego's amendment from the ndaa with the use of a glaringly undemocratic procedural gimmick to help trump fulfill his campaign promise. republican leadership's actions to unilaterally open the door for funding the wall through the use of this defense bill is an insult to every single member of the armed services committee, to our democratic principles, and to the spirit of bipartisanship. they chose to undermine the unanimous judgment of the armed services committee without the courage to test their proposal with a vote or even a debate on the floor. now, you may hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle claim that prohibitting the construction of the wall doesn't fall within the jurisdiction of the defense department. however, i'm not sure why the eight members of the rules committee believe that they are more qualified to judge what should be included in the ndaa
than the 61 members of the armed services committee, or the 435 members of this deliberative body as a whole. further, i'm not sure why the rules committee thought that a discriminatory amendment preventing the department of defense from providing medically necessary health care services -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. the gentlelady will not continue until the house is in order. the gentlelady can continue. ms. lujan grisham: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i'm not sure why the rules committee thought a discriminatory amendment preventing the department of defense from providing medically necessary health care services to transgender military personnel was more appropriate for debate than preventing trump from usurping funds intended for our troops. you may also hear that my
republican colleague claims that president trump can't use any funds in the ndaa to start construction of the wall anyway. but that's not true. under title 10, the secretary of defense, transfer funding for that purpose -- can transfer funding for that purpose this afternoon if he wanted. all without approval of congress. mr. speaker, the only way this body can guarantee that trump cannot use department of defense funds to construct the border wall is to put that prohibition in the bill explicitly. and the only way we can do that is by passing my motion to recommit, to restore congressman gal go's bipartisan amendment in the -- gallego's bipartisan amendment in the bill and make sure our troops are not robbed to pay for a border wall. but i want to be clear. the adoption of this amendment will not prevent passage of the underlying bill. if the amendment is adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will immediately be voted upon. we all have an opportunity to stand united, to support our nation's service members, and
to protect hard-earned taxpayer dollars from the president's political pipe dream. i urge my colleagues to support my final amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, to oppose the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, this is a procedural motion that in my view should be rejected. can he could spend all day and night argue -- we could spend all day ate and night arguing provisions of -- and night arguing provisions that are not in the bill. there's nothing in this bill that focuses a border wall. the focus of this bill are the men and women who serve our nation in the military and the national security of the united states. that's what i want to take a moment to talk about. i would suggest that all of us
think back just to the events of the last 10 days. on july 4, north korea launched what most observers believe is an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching parts of the united states, and we know they already have nuclear weapons. on july 9, iraqi prime minister went into mosul to celebrate he ousting of isis with u.s. advisors, u.s. air power, and u.s. intelligence. and also this week, the chinese navy conducted drills in the mediterranean on their way to conduct joint exercises with the russians in the balance tacks. -- in the baltics. this is just a taste of the world we live in and of the provisions -- and there are that ons in this bill
address every one of these incidents. from more missile defense to getting more ships in the water faster and cheaper, to supporting our continuing earths -- -- continuing efforts against isis, al qaeda and terrorist groups. but there's another event this week that i hope we all keep in mind. monday, july 10, a kc-130 crashed on its trip across the country. we do not know what caused this crash. but the early evidence indicates that there was a catastrophic failure when it was cruising at altitude. it will be fully investigated. but in the meantime, i think we always have to remember that even on routine training missions, even on routine deployments, the men and women who serve are risking their lives for us. and we owe them the best equipment, in the best shape, with the best training that our nation can provide. d that is not --
unfortunately that's not what they've been getting. this year our committee has heard testimony that under the budget caps, the army is outranged, outgunned and outdated. more than half the navy aircraft cannot fly. get a load of this. more than half the planes in the air force qualify for an antique license in the state of virginia. more than half the planes the navy has can't fly. and unfortunately accident rates are going up. sometimes i've heard the argument that, well, we're not going to give them any more money until they can pass an audit or they can do this or that or the other thing. but as everybody rushes out to get on your airplanes, just think about this. what if the board of directors of your airline decided that we're not going to spend any more money repairing planes until there's a book keeping problem solved in headquarters. that's exactly what we've been
doing to our military. we've not been giving them the planes and other equipment in good repair. every year for 55 straight years congresses and presidents of both parties have gotten into law a national defense authorization act. there's a lot of credit to go around. including the members on both sides of this aisle who have contributed to this product. and i am very grateful for what you've done. but what i'm really grateful for are the men and women who serve and inspire us. the men and women who are ounting on us. mr. speaker, i would just say, whatever our differences on other issues, which we'll have time to debate in another time and place, whatever our
differences about what's in or not in this bill, we need to put those differences aside and continue to support the men and women who serve and defend us. let's not let them down. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new mexico seek recognition? ms. lujan grisham: i ask for a recorded vote, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 190. are 235. he amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the entleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman is correct. he house will come to order. ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: yesterday the committee issued announcements outlining the amendment process for three that likely will be before the rules committee next week. has been t deadline set for tuesday, july 18, at for h.r. 218, the ng cove road land exchange act. h.r. 2910, the promoting teragency coordination for review of natural gas pipeline act. 2883, the promoting cross border energy infrastructure act. of these measures is available on the rules committee website. contact me or a member of the rules committee if you have any questions. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, five-minute vote will go continue. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, he ayes have it.
>> mr. speaker, on that i demand a recorded vote. e speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? thornberry: i ask unanimous consent that engrossment of be 2810 the clerk authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-references rns and make ch other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the house in amending the bill. that the instruction in amendment number 35 printed in 115-217, be hanged from page 125 to page 121. and that the instruction and amendment number 1 printed in
mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask animous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. e speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank you, mr. speaker. yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. mccarthy from california. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i ask unanimous consent to revise remarks.d my the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, on meet at e house will noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. postponed until 6:30. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. or morning hour and noon for legislative business.
on thursday, the house will eet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week. a complete list of which will be announced by close of usiness today. in addition, the house will consider three bills that help energy our infrastructure and fully utilize america's natural resources. h.r. 2910, the promoting interagency of ination and review natural gas pipelines act sponsored by representative bill flores. would ensure better coordination between ferc and other agencies in the ermitting of new pipelines while improving accountability by requiring more public isclosures. next would be the promoting cross-border energy infrastructure act sponsored by representative wayne mullin. this bill establishes a uniform and transparent process for constructing electric transmission facilities and cross-border pipelines.
and third, h.r. 806, oat zone standards implementation act -- the ozone standards implementation act. which streamlines the compliance process and ensures reasonable implementation of the 2015 air quality standards. lastly, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.r. 218, the king cove land exchange act, sponsored by representative don young. this will provide the residents of king cove a safe and reliable transportation route necessary for medical care. i look forward to passing these critical bills in the house. finally, mr. speaker, additional legislative items are possible in the house. if i could take one note and wish chairman thornberry a happy birthday tomorrow and i think passing his bill today was that birthday gift from all. i would like to notify members -- i will notify any members of changes to our schedule. i thank my friend and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the majority leader for that information.
i might say that that may be the most expensive birthday present anybody ever has gotten when you mention mr. thornberry, the chairman has done very well. i congratulate him on his work and his bipartisan, working together with his committee members. mr. leader, you and i have talked about this briefly. but obviously we now have on the schedule two weeks left to go to do our business. there is some discussion in the senate, as the gentleman knows, about them meeting into august. obviously one of the problems with that is, for particularly younger members, a lot of members here have children who go back to school the third week in august. so if the first two weeks are not available to them, can we give them some direction on whether or not we expect to be here past the scheduled adjournment date of the 31st i yield to my friend -- 31st? i yield to my friend.
mr. mccarthy: as of now i have no schedule changes to what has been announced. i do want to notify the members, though. when the senate sends us the health care bill, if we are still in session, we will move to the health care bill. if we are out, back in our districts, i would give them a notify of time appropriate to come back and begin our work. we would not wait until the recess is over. we would begin early. mr. hoyer: i thank the entleman for his comments. members ought to plan accordingly. secondly, mr. majority leader, mr. speaker, the appropriations committee's marking up its bills, but we have not yet adopted a budget. does the majority leader -- and therefore have no house-approved top line for discretionary spending. can the majority leader give us any view as to whether or not the budget committee may be
reporting before we leave for the august break, a budget establishing an upper line for discretionary spending? and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have two good pieces of information. the budget committee will be marking up in committee next week. appropriations, as you know, because you were a member of it, i have never seen appropriations work like they have this year. knowing that we have a new administration, knowing that you get the budget late, but they have every single bill, all 12, out of subcommittee already. as of the end of the day, they'll have seven out of full committee. and at the end of next week, they will have all 12 done, through subcommittee and full committee. so i knew you would be excited. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i thank the majority leader for his observation. i might, if i can, first year i
was majority leader, which was in 2007, we passed all appropriation bills before the august break to the senate. but i'm pleased that the appropriations committee is moving forward and let's hope that we can honor regular order. does the majority leader expect us to consider each of the bills that the gentleman refers to as having been passed through subcommittee, some through full committee, do we expect to consider those discretely one at a time on the floor? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. no decision has been made yet. knowing that we are in a different situation with the new administration, there's an opportunity to do it differently, but be able to make sure we take up all the bills. i'll keep the gentleman notified when the decisions are made. mr. hoyer: thank you. in addition, mr. majority leader, one of the things obviously that i think both sides are concerned about is the -- and secretary mnuchin
has urged us and others have urged us to deal with the debt limit. we're not exactly sure when it will be necessary and when the administration will run out of extraordinary measures to ensure that we pay our bills. i've told the majority leader privately and i've said publicly to the press that, assuming we have a clean debt limit extension, it would be my intention to urge my members to support such a clean debt limit extension. does the gentleman have any thought as to when we might be considering that? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend for yielding. and for the question. do i agree with you on the prems a that -- premise that it is responsible fiscal policy and important to our country to succeed, that includes honoring full faith and credit of the united states. the latest information i was given, i believe this is public, is the debt ceiling will not run out until october.
there was conversations that that could have been earlier. but we will continue to work with you and secretary mnuchin to make sure we pass it. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. lastly i would say that obviously i know the gentleman and i, i think the overwhelming majority of members of the house on both sides of the aisle, are very concerned that sure that sanctions on iran's malevolent actions and russia's actions, including them involving themselves in american elections, is an item of concern. i know the gentleman's working on it. can the gentleman tell me what he thinks the schedule for that bill might be? mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and as the gentleman knows, unfortunately the senate, we had a constitutional challenge on a blue slip, on the way they passed their bill. there is concern on this side that we want to make sure we move that bill on a very quick manner and do it correctly.
do i believe there's a bill that moved out of here -- i do believe that there's a bill that moved out of here, that there's an addition that should be added and that is north korea. that came out of here 419-1. i believe iran, the work russia has done and what north korea has done, it would be a very strong statement for all of america to get that sanction bill completed and done and to the president's desk. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i share that view that we want to get this done as soon to get this done as soon as possible. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on monday, july 17, 2017, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania eek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, this week the house debated the national defense authorization act, which i believe is one of the most essential responsibilities of congress. to fund our armed services. this house works to ensure our service men and women have the resources they need to keep america safe. we must also make certain our veterans, our military have access to the resources they need to be successful in civilian life. this certainly includes access to nutritional food. out of the 22 million veterans in the united states, about 1.7 million are in households that
currently participate in the supplemental nutrition assistant program -- assistance program or snap. approximately 46% of our veteran are senior citizens. including those who served in world war ii, korea and vietnam. veterans of all ages may also have widely varying levels of disabilities or limitations. snap cannot solve all of the challenges a veteran or a member of an active duty military family faces. but it can help eligible veterans once they return home. as the agriculture committee prepares the next farm bill, we must remain vigilant in our dedication to serve those who have given so much to defense of our nation. thank you, -- in defense of our nation. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: i rise today in tribute to kay, a late resident of colorado who passed away at
the age of 73. i only got to know kay during her time in colorado. the last 11 years of her life. i got to meet her through her work in founding our health, our future, our area that initiated a successful fracking ban for the city and dealt with the disposal of fracking waste products in the city. while unfortunately that fracking ban was later overturned by the supreme court, the legacy of her citizen activism should be inspiring for all of us. her friend said she was a fierce warrior for democracy and for her environment. our mutual friend, bob, said kay was dedicated to aspects of having a better and safer environment for all. kay is somebody who, as a citizen, was able to pull people together and had more affect on keeping people safe than the politicians. kay truly helped give voice to the power of the people. and her legacy will live on with all those who were touched
and protected by her actions. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, this weekend bucks county, pennsylvania, welcomes the vietnam traveling memorial wall. 50 years ago many brave women and men from bucks and montgomery counties were among the tens of thousands who would give their lives in the vietnam war. the traveling wall is a large scale replica of the memorial here in washington, d.c. it moves around the nation, providing remembrance and healing to local communities like bucks county, where 136 soldiers were killed or m.i.a. during the vietnam war. i'm proud of the memorial day . rade committee
paul, paul and alexandria, dale, carol, greg and all of the volunteers and veteran for their relentless effort to bring the vietnam traveling memorial wall to bucks county. mr. fitzpatrick: as we honor those who died in service of our nation, we too thank all of those who have served and we pause to think and -- thank and think of those who are defending our country today. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i want to thank the house armed services committee for working with me to strengthen the defense department's response to water contamination issues. these contaminants are plaguing
communities due to the use of a.f.f. -- afff fire fighting foams across our nation. including in pennsylvania in my district. i've been fighting for federal resources and responsibility since first learning of these issues. with my amendment and the $30 million increases each for the air force and navy to combat this issue that we fought so hard for, this bill is an important step in the right direction. mr. boyle: toward addressing this issue, any and every way we possibly can. but our fight continues. y bipartisan legislation, h.r. 3106, would require an enforceable nationwide drinking water standard. for p.f.c.'s, including the p's, rather than the current voluntary advisory. i will keep fighting to address this issue with the seriousness it merits. nd i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to voice my support for the national defense authorization act. the united states of america is the greatest force for freedom, peace, and prosperity. we are the greatest, because we have built a military that has the best equipped, the best trained, and the best-led fighting force the world has ever known. mr. speaker, we all have responsibility to every service member who puts their life on the line for america that responsibility is to give them superior equipment, sound strategy that doesn't put them in unnecessary danger, and care for their families while they are away this bill give ours troops a sorely needed pay raise and helps to rebuild our military, thus fulfilling our promise. in the words of george washington, to be prepared for
war is the most effectule means of preserving peace. i'm proud of this bill and thankful for my amendment to be included in it. it allows service members to use the skills they developed in the force. in the work i am proud of this bill and thankful for all those who worked on it and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the new version of the senate republican health care bill should be tossed in the trash. no amendments or -- no amendment or edit will fix the massive damage it will cause to california and the entire country. women, seniors, and low-income families across the country are being threatened. it threatens to shut down hospitals in my district which
would leave many of my constituents without access to critical health care services. people like do rein from los angeles county will be forced to fight for their lives. do rein was in remission for -- doreen was in remission for ovarian cancer when she is signed up to receive coverage for the affordable care act even though she has a pre-existing condition. now she's scared for her life as threatens to take her health care away. the senate republican health care bill should be tossed in the trash. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: frur does the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to one of the most influential legislators in the history of the indiana general assembly, luke kinley who has
recently announced his decision to retire after 25 years service representing district 20 in the indiana state senate. senator kinley was an invaluable resource and mentor in my six years service in the state senate and i'm grateful i had the opportunity to learn from him. senator kinley has established himself as a champion of fiscal responsibility and limited government. his accomplishments are too numerous to fully list here but since 2009 he has led the senate appropriations committee, during which time indiana passed five balanced budgets, cut taxes, invested in priorties and built a substantial rainy day fund and senator kinley has been the architect of our state's remarkable fiscal turnaround and his impact on hoosiers will be felt for generations to come. with a national debt approaching $20 trillion, i think it's fair to say we could use a lot more of luke kinley's leadership as
-- here in our capitol. i wish him well as he steps down and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, those who upport the g.o.p. medical bill have forgotten one of the main and first principles of medical care. mrs. maloney do no harm. -- mrs. maloney: do no harm. they said repeatedly they would protect pre-existing conditions, they said they would protect the accessible and affordable health care and the premiums. but they must have been crossing their fingers when they said it because nothing is further from the truth. under their latest bill, premiums will soar, particularly for the elderly. women would have to once again worry about pre-existing conditions such as pregnancy.
the defunding of planned parenthood would hurt and many, many women, particularly low income women, and the cuts to medicare in the build would be devastating to millions of women, seniors, children, and the disabled. and in addition, the diminished subsidies of -- could mean that more people than the 22 million in the last bill that were removed from health care under the bill, more people will lose their health care. vote no on this disastrous bill. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: the yoits is finally holding china accountable for its langstanding human trafficking abuses. the state department's 2017 trafficking in persons report, china was down fwrade to the
worst level, tier 3. this means that in the past year the chinese have done little to nothing to end human trafficking which is nothing more than modern day slavery in this communist nation. china's crimes include state sponsored forced labor, sex trafficking and trafficing of children, men and women from other countries this puts china alongside some of the world's worst offenders of human rights, russia, syria, and iran. it illegally detains and tortures its own people as well as u.s. citizens that are there. it restricts the fundamental human right to free speech and freedom of religion. china is allowing labor and sex trafficing to flourish in its borders. now the entire world knows what has been taking place behind their great wall of brutality. lt abuse. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition?
>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, we cannot allow politics to get in the way of patriotism in this house. we might disagree about health care, we might disagree about tax reform, but i know that there are patriots in this house who want to stand together against russian interference in our elections, patriots who will record their votes for country above party. the senate passed russia sanctions 98-2. this is not controversial policy. the controversy, mr. speaker, is your refusal to let us vote on it. if you call the vote, russian sanctions would pass. they would pass with an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of patriots. those of us who refuse to let anyone stand in the way of defending our nation. when this nation is under attack, we must come together, mr. speaker, let us vote to condemn russian cyberattacks, let us vote to insulate
sanctions from political interference and let us stand together as patriots to defend the united states. mr. speaker, bring the russian sanctions bill, the one that passed the senate last week, the one that passed 98-2, bring it to a vote here. let us pass it, send it to the president's desk and see whether he will sign it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from pennsylvania -- for what purpose does the gentleman from welve seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. rise today to congratulate susquannah valley medical services a first responder organization in my district, for receiving the american heart association's gold bluss award. only 1% of organizations nationwide achieve this dez egg nation. it recognizes the great length the e.m.s. has take ton improve the treatment of patients
suffering from severe heart attacks. last year their personnel provided life-saving treatment to 94% of patients within the critical 90-minute time period prescribed by the american heart association. these remarkable individuals who serve have taken incredible pride in their work that has saved lives, and had real results in our community. for the dedicated men and women of susquannah valley e.m.s., i thank you and your community thanks you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, we are not republicans and we are not democrats. we are americans and we draw together around the protecting of america's security. with that in mind, you can imagine my shock as a member of
the judiciary committee to find out that a k.b.g. agent was in a meeting with jared kushner who now has a security clearance and donald trump jr. among others my shock to find out that the lawyer who was present in that meeting had a $200 million lawsuit to stop being sued on the money laundering and that that lawsuit was settled by the trump justice department for $6 million. $200 million down to $6 million. to the american people, that means that the $200 million that was owed to the this government tushed out to be $6 million. that is why i will have a resolution to ask the president to step down. and as well to introduce a resolution, a constitutional resolution, to begin a constitutional investigation into whether or not we are protected here in this nation. our security sour greatest priority. and i would also suggest that the sanctions bill that was voted on in the senate must be
voted on the house now and we cannot still continue to hide the ball, sanction the k.g.b., sanction mr. putin, sanction russia. they are in fact here to demolish the democksoif the this nation. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to celebrate a region in my district, the yakima valley, for being recognized for the ford trekking award for best beer experience. john cooper, president and c.e.o. of yakima valley tourism nominated the region for the award and this is just one example of the efforts john and his group are making to promote the budding beer and hospitality industries of the yakima valley.
the food tracking awards recognize excellent food and beverage experiences all over the world and it is an honor for yakima to be selected as the winner for the best beer experience among international applicants. central washington's beer industry is thriving and has greatly contributed to the increase in tourism as well as the overall economic development of the area. as a third generation hop farmer from the yakima valley, i'm proud that my fellow growers and our local craft brewers are receiving recognition for their efforts in making our region a unique travel destination. please join me in con grate -- congratulating john and his team and the entire industry for helping bring such a prestigious award to washington's fourth district. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition?
without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of new york state trooper joel r. davis. trooper davis was tragically killed in the line of duty on july 9 while responding to a domestic disturbance call in the town of theresa in upstate new york. another victim was also tragically killed in this terrible accident. trooper davis was a father, son, husband, and a friend to many. he was deeply involved in his community and also served as the commissioner of a local youth league baseball team. trooper davis was well respected by all those who worked with him and beloved by everyone. as new yorkers, we stand in solidarity to mourn the life of trooper davis, a dedicated public servant rant -- servant and a life that was too soon lost. at this heartbreaking time we offer our condolences to his family, community and colleagues alike. it is at time like these that we come together and pause to
extend our gratitude to all law enforcement in our state and across the nation who risk their lives every day to protect us and to keep us safe. we are grateful for their dedication, service and bravery and for outstanding members like trooper joel davis who will rest in peace. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life and public service of janet bosley. janet has been a caseworker in my district office and previously served my predecessor, congressman matt salmon. she's a wife and mother, a grandmother, and i'm var happy to call her my friend. janet will soon be retiring. she faithfully served the constituents of arizona in my fifth congressional district for
the past five years. her steady presence in the district has been invaluable. my staff and i are going to miss janet's infectious smile and her witty stories. she's one of the most engaging people i've known and my life has been blessed because of her friendship and example. i wish her the best of luck and happiness as she move into this new chapter in her life. thank you, janet. may god bless you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. jones of south carolina for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s granted. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2017, gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
mr. russell: thank you, mr. speaker. there's a lot of discussion as we gaggetter to talk about the role of government -- gather to talk about the role of government in almost everything we do day to day. i think most americans, as they go to work and look at the role of government in their lives, they don't give the government a lot of thought. they want to be left alone. they're willing to pay some measure of taxes to have things that we all agree on like schools, roads, bridges, stop lights, national defense, other things. we like to see efficient government, we like to see it small, we like to see it without waste. if there are things that other services can provide without it being done by government, we like choices. we like privatization. we like the private sector. but there are certain things,
mr. speaker, that the government does have a role in. this was recognized by perhaps est american we ever produced, abraham lincoln. when he said, quote, the legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they cannot by individual effort do at all or so well for themselves. mr. speaker, there are three sectors that the government does have a role. and as we as conservatives might want limited government, efficiency, and lack of waste, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want similar things, but they might approach it a different way, we all as americans have a moral obligation to protect the security of the united states of america. we've just seen that with the
passage of the national defense authorization. but what i would like to address today is a broach in one of our pillars of national security with a proposal, with our arrow space -- with our air space. the three areas -- aerospace. the three areas we must protect is our national defense, our national intelligence and our ational aerospace. we are considering now an air act. h.r. 2997. which would take the federal aviation administration's re-authorization, which we have to do, and it will pretty much remove federal control of air traffic controls, air traffic controllers and the control of our aerospace, and put it into the private industry. many of us in a bipartisan
fashion have grave concerns with this. i am one of them. if you look at h.r. 2997, what you'll find is that the president has diminished authority. in the 1980's, when air traffic controllers through their unions went on strike, and they said that, we're not going play, we're going to picket and it put the united states at risk, ronald reagan warned them by saying, if you do that, you're fired. they said, ah, he's not going to do that. how is he going to control the skies? the president, acting on his constitutional responsibilities, fired them. he took control, as he should have, and air traffic controllers by the thousands were removed and others were put in their place. h.r. 2997 would remove this type of authority that the president of the united states would have. if this bill were to become law
, president reagan would not have been able to do what he did in the 1980's. it also removes title 31 authority. what is that? title 31 authority is how we through the appropriation process and through the power of the purse control and oversee government so that we the people and their duly elected reptive -- representatives are able to control the aspects and agencies of government. because without this, without this power of the purse, and without this powerful oversight tool, you might have bureaucracies become an entity unto themselves. and so title 1 authority is vital that we have those hearings, controls, measures and prohibitions. even if something is decided on, money is not authorized. and therefore it gets shut down. title 1 -- title 31 authority in h.r. 2997 would be removed.
there's also no other oversight provisions that would be put in its place. why? because what it's doing is it will take the federal aviation administration's air traffic control system, and it will put it into the hands of a private company. i'm all about privatization and business and choices and there's a lot of things. but going back to the lincoln quote, there are certain collective things that we cannot do as individuals and that the government has a role. if waste, inability to procure, inability to modernize or inefficiencies were a condemnation to privatize everything, then why don't we just privatize national defense? they waste money. they have trouble procuring. they have trouble modernizing. why don't we just turn over national defense to the private sector? we would never do such a thing. because it all would -- it
would place all of us at risk. yet we're going to take the national aerospace control of the skies, and as it stacks up, and there's a lot that goes on up there as i'll illustrate, we're going to put that into the hands of a private company. and this private company would have a board, but it will not have title 1 authority oversight, and under its current form the president will have diminished authority, only in time of war, to take control of the aerospace system. this is a bad idea. also transfers all d.o.d. intelligence agencies, department of defense, intelligence agencies, homeland security support to this private entity. today the f.a.a. does a lot of things with their air traffic controllers. what do they do? at any given moment, and as many of you flew into washington, d.c., to come and see your government at work, you flew on an airline. sometimes there's delays.
you get it. there's weather. there's different things. other times, you're sitting there and it's clear as a bell and you're wondering, what is the holdup? part of that reason, unknown to even the pilots on the tarmac, is that there are missions that our military performs. there are national intelligence missions that are being performed. and surveillance missions that is are being performed. -- missions that are being performed. there are border security missions that are being performed. when they take priority, they also take priority for air traffic control and the clearances and many times things will have to be rerouted to accommodate it, the american public, even the pilots on the planes are none the wiser. now under h.r. 2997, the problem that you'll have is that all of this authority will now be coordinated with a private entity. i'll explain why this is a problem in a moment. as a conservative, i'm all
about privatization where it makes sense. but when it comes to national security, as a combat infantryman, a veteran of three wars, someone who served my country in uniform for 21 years, we must protect this great republic. and there is a role for the united states government when it comes to our national security. when we have straight from this and tried to privatize certain sectors, our greatest embarrassments with national intelligence have been when we have contracted to private entities for that collection. think edward snowden, think leaks in government, with classified information getting out. where is that occurring? it's occurring with subcontractors and private entities who we were assured when we passed these laws, oh, they'll be under the same agencies, under the same systems and everything will be fine, trust us.
and then we in congress have authorized that and then, what? we sit in our hearings and our committees with our boney fingers and our red faceses going, mr. secretary -- faces going, mr. secretary, or mr. agency head, how did you let this happen? all we have to do is look in the mirror. when we take these controls away, on things that we must have a government role in, defense, intelligence and aerospace, we're creating the very construct that causes these problems. our alliances were shaken. our country was embarrassed. our intelligence was placed at risk. operators in the field were exposed. some even harmed, because contractors let it get out of hand. look at national defense. we see some of the same things. some of the most embarrassing episodes that we've had have been with security
contractsers. in national defense. we were told, hey, you don't have timer to for that, we don't have the budget for that -- have time for that, we don't have the budget for that, we can do this. yet some of the most black eye moments have been with contractors. what about on the administrative side? that would make sense. i see my colleague, representative ted lieu, here. he and i have been very frustrated in seeing some of these types of decisions being made with contracting. the office of personnel management. hey, let's take this away from the department of defense and let's move all of these classified personnel records and we'll have a clearinghouse and we can contract that. everything will be good. you don't to devote time and treasure to do this. and yet 25 million exposed records later, of those that held security clearances, mr. lieu and both receiving a letter in the mail saying that we had been exposed because we held top secret clearances in the military. and yet when we made these decisions, we said, this would
be really good if we move this to contracting. it will be more efficient. it will save us money. and it will be just as good. well, that was not the case. so now that takes us to nationalary space. -- national aerospace. what are we talking about here? tens of thousands of aircraft in the air, in flights every single day. and if it's so broken a system, when was the last time a major atal airline crash happened? can't remember? you'd have to go back a ways, which i'll cover in a moment. but let's stick with this national security concern. h.r. 2997 diminishing the power of the president, takes away title 1 authority, does not replace it with any other congressional controls. sure, it has congressional review for fee changes or rulemaking, but nothing else.
and it transfers department of defense, intelligence, homeland security, border security, all of these things, and it places them under a coordination with a private entity. and they assure us, oh, it will be the same system we have now, everything is going to be just fine. but the problem is, a private entity, unlike today, did you know every air traffic controller in an air traffic control tower takes an oath of office to support and defend the constitution of the united states? most people didn't even know that. to include those that crafted h.r. 2997. they take an oath of office, they have to be a united states citizen. why? because it's vital to our national security. now we want to change that because it's efficient and it's a broken, archaic system. well, we're all about modernizing. that's common ground we can all agree on. we need to modernize. but we do not need to go the
direction that h.r. 2997 has. this air act. and my issues with the bill is purely on policy. there are excellent people that have worked this issue for a number of years. they have the right motives and the right reasons for approaching this issue. but when it comes to national security, we also have a constitutional and moral requirement to support and defend our great republic. and here's where some of that is puts a rit -- at risk -- is put at risk. air traffic controllers and managers who work in air traffic control facilities across the country are routinely involved in operations that deal directly with national security of the united states. how so? most americans, to include members of congress, are not even aware of this facet of their work. for instance, prior to the beginning of operation enduring freedom, thanks true story, an f.a.a. supervisor placed a number of flight plans in front
of an air traffic controller in kansas city. those flight plans were for b-2 stealth bombers that were about to depart from whiteman air force base, fly across the atlantic, and drop their bombs in afghanistan, opening the rounds of our response to 9/11. then they would come back to whiteman base in missouri. if you and i were sitting on the tar pack in a kansas city -- tarmac in a kansas city airport and look outside, we'd say, wow, what's the holdup? totally oblivious. yet this is important work. and their mission was obviously classified that the time. but it was f.a.a. u.s. government air traffic controllers, not private contractors, not private company citizens, controllers and managers working these aircraft and -- in u.s. air space, many hours prior to the start of the armed conflict. every time air force one takes off from joint base andrews outside washington, d.c.,
carrying very important people, to include the president of the united states, it is an f.a.a. u.s. government air traffic controller clearing that aircraft for takeoff. not just clearing it. then it's an f.a.a. controller and manager who ensthires air space of the symbol of freedom, he shiny blue and white boeing move our sed to president and vice president. these are operations that go unseen. many of them and the aspects of them are obviously classified that we could never go into here. but they're vital to our security. they should not be put in a private corporation's hands where there's no oversight and no control. the f.a.a. air traffic
controllers and managers routinely provide air space security, sometimes for hours on end at locations across the country as the f.b.i. or state and local law enforcement performs classified missions using government aircraft. some cases, not even other aircraft know about those missions or what it is they're conducting. depending upon the sensitivity of what it is that they're doing or is being performed. u.s. air traffic controllers, government employees, managers also participate in drug interdiction operations with drug enforcement administration as well as customs and border protection. this might involve providing ntercept vectors due to drug aircraft, drug lords trying to sneak things in or whatever it might be. that has to alter flight plans and do complicated things. it might also involve protecting the air space for drone operations. many people are unaware that the
f.a.a. u.s. government employed air traffic controllers and managers are also responsible for military flights. not just the kind i described at our bases and airports but this includes special use air space that maybe has been delegated to the united states in other countries or to do flight train, refuel, attack and bombing missions, and this same government employed air traffic controllers and managers are responsible for military aircraft on secret missions to include drones and drone killers. they're responsible for the aircraft of military usage to communicate with our nuclear infrastructure so if we have to, god forbid, defend the republic in that manner, they're right there in that loop of that system. not some private company. they're also responsible for the air space above the areas where our missile defense capacities
occur. and the testing systems that go on with that. you can see why handing these coordinations over to a private company might be a little problematic. and then let's look at september 11, 2001. it was f.a.a. u.s. government air traffic controllers and managers who were responsible for putting over 4,000 aircraft on the ground almost immediately. very short order after america was attacked by terrorists using planes as weapons, killing 3,000 of our fellow citizens, but it rapidity of response because of the way the network is that they were able to make instant decisions, notstrog coordinate through some private corporation. but they were able to do so and we'll speak more about that the air space above this very
capitol and above the white house, the supreme court and all the monuments that you've enjoyed as you've come to washington, d.c., or as you work here, are symbols of -- the symbols of our republic, closely watched over by the f.a.a. their air traffic controllers and managers who have sworn an oath, unlike people in private company they don't swear oaths, excuse me. employees of private corporations do not take oaths, nor do they promise to defend against all enemies foreign and omestic. privatizing the u.s. air traffic control system will not enhance our country's national security. unfortunately, the national security role that f.a.a. controllers an managers perform every day is not well known even among members here. one can list a number of
functions that our government performs where we do have a vested interest, the people , in saying we give this authority, we the people, to the government because we can't do this as individuals, the federal government does have a role. so is it about modernization or is it about privatization? we're all in agreement on modernization. privatization, i'm afraid, mr. speaker, that a loft us are like a pack of dogs lapping up antifreeze. it smells good. it might even taste good but it's not without drastic consequence. just this week we narrowly missed having to vote on this bill in its current form next week. this is why we're bringing these points out so that we do not make this grave mistake that
will broach our national security. well-meaning people, friends, colleagues, people with just as uch passion as i may have, but yet we the people have to take a step back and protect our national security. there's also in h.r. 2997 no provisions to prohibit in this private corporation foreign nationals working in it. today if you're going to be an air traffic controller, you have to be a united states citizen. you have to take an oath of office. under a private corporation or who they subcontract with for air traffic control, this bill were it to become law, and it cannot, we must prevent it what would happen is, there's no prohibitions in that law against foreign nationals guiding your skies or taking an oath of office where they're as committed to our republic, mr. speaker, as any of us work the oath that we have to take.
thank you. so the national security concerns are paramount. until we address them we should not rush in. we want modernization, i applaud the president of the united states for wanting to bring this issue to the ithe light of the public. we need modernization. we agree with that. in fact, just knowing that we have his support to move toward a modernized plan gives us great comfort. because we need that backing from the executive. but we have to address these national security issues. and right now, this bill does not do that. even if it did address all of these, there's still a question that remains. has the government demonstrated that it cannot control the skies and that the f.a.a.'s air traffic control system and its controllers are incapable of
keeping us safe? i can see if it's something thatst that's broken and we have to intervene as government and make sure it's more efficient and we have to do the right thing but in this case, where is all of this brokenness we're hearing about? sure, archaic equipment, been there and done that. serving in the military. as you heard chairman thornberry say today, half of the air force's aircraft would qualify for antique license if they were civilian aircraft registered in west virginia. as a soldier, i lived by the motto of, i'll fight with what i have and i'll win where i fight. whether it's with flintlocks, hatchets, or modern rifles or modern technology, poor is the workman who blames his tool. our f.a.a. air traffic controllers do a marvelous job with the systems they have. that's why almost a decade ago we worked toward the next generation system to modernize
and it is on track with procured funding like nasa has because it's expensive stuff and it takes time, you don't want that to be subject to funding problems. the f.a.a. as a whole is subject to funding problems. you have a government shutdown flike 2013, that creates problems. but the modernization is on track. for the pilots we might have, and i know, mr. speaker, you have put yourself at the wheel , planes and in this case there are a lot of things that we can see where the f.a.a. does a marvelous job. doesn't mean that we have to privatize it. on 9/11, over 4,000 planes were grounded immediately and safely. what a lot of americans don't know, mr. speaker, is that the f.a.a.'s national operations manager who made that unprecedented, gutsy call, he
was a government employee, one of those bloated government employee, we got to firing move out. and me was bill swanee guess what, that was his first day on the job as the f.a.a.'s national operations manager. wow. what a first day. but he was good, he'd taken an oath to the republic , he meat a gutsy call, 4,000 planes put on the ground. and it helped keep our republic safer because it could have been worse. the f.a.a. has clearly demonstrated through its air traffic control system that it can hand they will job. when was the last time we can remember a fatal accident with a carrier, major carrier, 2009, and that was a regional carrier but also in 2009, there was something else that happened. on the 15th of january, one month before the fatal accident in february in buffalo, new york, with the regional carrier,
which is the last time we had a major fatal accident, and that was u.s. air flight 320. piloted by captain sullenberger and co-pilotted by rick styles. skiles. and so what we've seen, what we all know is that the heroism of those two pilots that they put the plane down in the hudson, saving all on board and we saw air traffic controllers doing everything with an emergency of one of the busiest airports providing so many options. mr. sullenberger, like so many of us, has grave concerns with h.r. 2997. this is not a man that has any government interest or privatization this or that or is up here lobbying or doing anything. so -- but yet he's somebody america trusts.
you might be interested in some of his comments. i'm quoting captain sully here. he says , my real issue, and i think for many people is that we have a wonderful and unique freedom in this country this unfettered, wonderful aviation system that anyone can participate in safely and efficiently. in most cases it's either too restrictive or too expensive for an average person to fly. and the only way you can go is on an airline or military flight, meaning other nations. it's prohibitively restrictive or expensive to do it any other way. that's something we need to protect and preserve and so why in the world would we want to give the key those king dm to the largest airlines under this h.r. 2997, he's referring to. because they definitely have their own agenda to lower their costs. commercial aviation, airline aviation has become an extraordinarily cost competitive industry globally and it becomes
more so day by day. by removing oversight and the air traffic control system from the f.a.a. and much of the oversight kuok currently has, mr. sullenberger goes on to state, and giving it to a group of people, stake holders, basically controlled by the largest airlines, to control access to and pricing of access to the air traffic criminal system, that's an extreme solution for what's really a political budget problem. captain sully goes on to say, it means bad things for everyone who flies. but especially for people who fly in nonairline ways, meaning general aviation. that's a big part of the system, he says. to continue his quote, i'm worried about access. i'm worried about exwittability. i'm worried about safety. pause in his quotations here, captain sully was the guy on safety. he would go around, this was his
job in the airlines. no man was better when it came to safety standards. for him, and then he demonstrated it that day that he knew what he was talking about. for him to make these kinds of comments, i think we need to take pause and take a step back and listen. to continue his quote, there are other, better ways to solve this political budget problem, by giving the f.a.a. and running the air traffic control system and making capital improvements to the air traffic control system more predictable, multiyear funding, without giving away the keys to the kingdom to the largest airlines to control access and fees and pricing too. mr. speaker, mr. speaker, i agree with captain sully. i think he knows something bout it. modernization. that's an area we can all agree on.
american aviation would suffer terribly without the benefit of the public structure of the air traffic control system. including its accountability to congress and the f.a.a. establishing a private air traffic control company, corporation, board, outside the purview of congress, with the unilateral power to collect fees, without controls from the government, and distribute service would threaten our national security, as i've spoken to already. accessibility and affordability of flights, not maybe immediately in the transition, but as you read h.r. 2997 it goes on to say that they can do a lot of things in a couple of years. then also pilot generation. look at general aviation in the examples that they use for comparisons. many of the proponents of this bill say, look at canada. look at europe. i love the canadian people. i've traveled through most of europe. even lived in germany as an
exchange student. yes, in germany today a pilot can go from 35,000 feet and he can glide all the way down to an airport in berlin. why? because he doesn't have steve russell, mr. chairman, out there in his sesna 140 in the way. guess what? in the united states, i have as much right to air space as a u.s. citizen flying, as that pilot who is, by the way, just coming here to deliver passengers. or any other airline pilot. what you won't find in germany is general aviation. you won't find access. as captain sully so correctly stated, it's a wonderful thing. we have access to that. it's one of our hallmark freedoms in the united states. now when he says that we'll be handing over the keys to the kingdom, what he means is that it goes to this private corporation, this board, and then they will, for commercial
interest, set up -- what does like? ard look well, here it is. right out of the bill. it will have six of its board members that will be on the commercial side of aviation. i have nothing against commercial aviation. american airlines, love them. they brought me home from three wars. i'll always have those memories. regional carriers, probably rought many folks listening to this today. but they have commercial interests. as captain sully so correctly stated. they will be concerned about those issues. that's fine. they run businesses. they don't have to protect our national security. they fly. and so what we see with this board is six of them in the commercial side. commercial, regional jets. then you've got one general aviation, one on the business side, with which could support general aviation or not.
but that clearly, as you lay out the board, two that will be appointed by the secretary of transportation, kind of his only say in a lot of this process. and then two that will be appointed by the board itself. and so what you will have is a 2/3 lop sided board that will favor the commercial interest rather than aviation as a whole. this is why the captain and so many others had grave concerns about what it does to our freedoms for flying. much of my protest against this bill have been because of the -- national security pieces. we can lay all of this other stuff aside. we have to solve these national security pieces in the bill. and right now they're not there. so with modernization we can get to some of that. but we have the safest air space in the world. where's this broken archaic system that we hear people saying? canada, love the canadians, i've driven the alcan twice. i've been through so much of
the country. driven 1,300 of dirt roads in canada. wonderful place. i've lectured in many of their cities in a former life. but canada has the population of texas. and if you were to look at the number of flights it handles each day, probably less flights than texas. yes, they have a modern system. we are having a modern system with nextgen. what we need to do is solve the acquisition pieceses, the modernization pieces. not the privatization pieces. why? we all know that much of north america's security is secured by the united states of america. they don't have to face the same things. that's why they can get away with such a small military. it's not an zpwimet. it's just the truth -- an entitlement. it's just the truth -- an indictment. it's just the truth. the bill in question, h.r. 2997, strips oversight authority of our national aerospace from the president, the congress and gives it to this unelected board of
individuals. and action that would threaten the united states' ability to maintain the integrity of our air space, as i spoke to earlier, mr. speaker. on what goes on at altitudes and in missions that most of us really have no clue. and it puts at risk thousands of missions that our military conducts in just training and safety in our skies every day. gives private contractors access to classified data. let's go back to what we were talking about with edward snowden. with the leaks that we're seeing out of the intelligence services these days. where's that coming from? it's coming from the private contractors. it goes lateral. you think it's going to be any different because we here in congress say, oh, no, no, hey, it's going to be great, this is going to be -- rest assured. i can already predict what's going to happen, mr. speaker. the disasters will strike. we'll sit in oversight and government reform, with boney -- bony fingers and red faces
going, how did you let this happen? and all we'd have to do is look in the mirror. because we're about, like dogs lapping up anti-freeze, to lick up something that smells good, tastes good. drastic consequences. if we want to maintain the safest and best air space in the world, we have to prevent the passage of h.r. 2997. this is hard for me to do. why? because i don't like opposing my own party. i don't like opposing my friends. -- you ike opposing know, i've done some therbletings in my life as a sold -- terrible things in my life as a soldier. i don't like conflict anymore. i try to stay as far away from that as i can. there are two veterans over here giving me thumbs up. combat veterans themselves. but i took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. and i'm not saying if you support this bill you're
unconstitutional. or that you don't love your country. or that you don't want to protect the republic. i'm not suggesting that at all. i have too many friends that have a counter view to mine. but it is my responsibility to expose what's in this bill and why it's dangerous. and why we can't do it. mr. speaker, we need to call on the american public and have them contact their members of congress and tell them to oppose h.r. 2997. to not let privatization of our air traffic control system happen. to keep it into the role that, like abraham lincoln said, sometimes things that we can't do ourselves, we theed to do collectively and the government -- we need to do collect -- collectively and the government has a role in that. mr. lincoln obviously knew what he was talking about. modernization, we can all agree on that. let's work on that, applaud the president for bringing this issue to the fore.
we need to deliver that win for him. but breaching national security of our air space and risking our safety on an unproven system is not a win. mr. speaker, the not something that we need to support -- it's not something that we need to support. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gallegly: -- r. gallego: mr. gallego: mr. speaker, on july 11, donald trump jr. released a series of emails regarding his meeting with a
russian government lawyer and an individual associated with the russian intelligence. don jr.'s emails are a smoke gun. it proves that the trump campaign was not only aware of the russian government's efforts to med until our elections, they were -- meddle in our elections, they were enthusiastic about accepting russian support. what follows are the contents of those emails. they paint a disturbing picture of a campaign and now an administration willing to break the law and sell out to an adversary of the united states, in order to advance their own petty interests. our hope is that the american people will carefully consider the content of these messages and what they say about the fitness of donald trump and his senior advisors to hold high office. we'll begin. a comment posted by donald trump jr. on july 11, 2017. to everyone, in order to be totally transparent, which we now know he wasn't even in this
email, i'm releasing the entire email chain of my emails with rob goldstein about the meeting on june 9, 2016. the first email on june 3, 2016, was from rob, who was relating a request from a president i knew from the 2013 miss universe pageant near moscow. he and his father have a very highly respected company in moscow. the information they suggested they had about hillary clinton i thought was political opposition research. i first wanted to just have a phone call, but when that didn't work out, they said the women would be in new york and asked if i would meet. i decided to take that meeting. the woman, as she has publicly said, was not a government official. and as we have said, she had no information to provide and wanted to talk about the adoption policy and an act. to put this in context this occurred before the current russian fieger was in vogue. as rob goldstein said today in the press, the entire meeting was the most inane nonsense i have heard and i was agitated
by it. nd of email. on june 3, 2016, at 10:36 a.m., rob goldstein wrote to donald trump jr. the following. good morning. emen just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. the crown prosecutor of russia met with his father this morning and in their meeting offered to good morning. provide the trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate hillary in her dealings with russia and would be very useful to your father. this is obviously very high level and sensitive information, but it's part of russia and its government support for mr. trump. helped along by the gentlemen. what do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to emen about it directly? i can also send this info to your father but it is ultrasensitive, so wanted to send to you first.
best, rob goldstein. at 10:53 a.m., less than 20 minutes after that email, donald trump jr. wrote back. thanks, rob. i appreciate that. i am on the road at the moment but perhaps i should speak to emen first. seems we have some time and if it's what you say it is, i love it. especially later in the summer. could we do a call first thing next week when i'm back? best, don. mr. speaker, i love it. his response was, i love it. i've worked in politics for a long time. i've never been approached with information from a foreign government. but if i were, my response would not be, i love it. my response would be, this is completely inappropriate. my response would be, don't ever contact me again. my response would be, i am calling the f.b.i. in this email, donald trump jr.
showed his true colors. this email proves that he lacks basic integrity. and the willingness of jared kushner to attend that meeting proves that he too is no patriot. >> after we finish reading these emails into the congressional record, we're going to discuss why it's a straight-up violation of the federal election campaign act. so on monday, june 6, 2016, rob goldstein writes back to donald trump jr. an email at 12:40 p.m. with the subject heading, regarding russia clinton. private and kfings. -- confidentiality. hi, don. let me know when you're ready to talk by phone on this hillary info. mr. lujan: wanted to try to schedule a time and -- mr. lieu: wanted to try to schedule a time and day. mr. gallego: on june 16, 2016, at 3:00 p.m., donald trump jr.
wrote back, rob, could we speak now? d. mr. lieu: then rob goldstein replies to donald trump jr., that same day at 3:37 p.m., let me track him down in moscow. what number should he call? by the way, any email that says tracking someone down in moscow might just raise some red flags. mr. gallego: on june 6, 2016, at 3:38 p.m., donald trump wrote back -- jr. wrote back, my cell number, we have omitted that cell number, unlike donald trump, we do not give out individual cell numbers, thanks, d. . lieu: goldstone replies, he's on stage in hoss cow he should be off in minutes. i'm sure he can call. mr. gallego: just a few minutes after receiving this email,
donald trump jr. wrote back, moscow, thanks for the help. mr. lieu: the next day, at 4:27 p.m., rob goldstone wrote, don, hope all is well. he asked i schedule a meeting with you and the russian government attorney who is flying other on this thursday. i believe you're aware of the meet, wonder if 3:00 p.m. or later on thursday works for you. i assume it would be at your office. best, rob goldstone. 2016, lego: on june 7, donald trump jr. writes, how about 3:00 at our office. thanks, appreciate your help setting this up. mr. lieu: rob goldstone wrote back later that day, perfect, won't sit in on the meeting but will bring them at 3:00 p.m. and introduce you, etc. i will send the names for the two people meeting with you for security when i have them later today. best, rob. we now know today that one of those names happens to be a
society counterintelligence officer. mr. gallego: on june 7, 2016, at 6:46 p.m., donald trump jr. writes great. ul man forth, campaign boss, my brother-in-law, jared kushner, and me. 725 fifth avenue, 25th floor which is trump tower. mr. lieu: on june 8, the next day, 10:48 a.m., goldstone writes back, would it be possible to move the meeting to 4:00 p.m. because the russian thorne is in court until 3:00, i was just informed. best, rob. mr. gayay go: on june 8, 2016, at 11:15, donald trump jr. writes, yes, i can do that until unless you wanted to do 3:00 today instead. let me know, i'll lock it in either way. that's some eagerness that man has for this information. mr. lieu: on wednesday, june 8, at 11:18 a.m. rob goldstone
wrote back, they can't do today as she hasn't landed yet from moscow. 3:00 p.m. is great tomorrow. best, rob. mr. gallego: this email is from donald trump, jr., sent wednesday, june 8, at 12:16 p.m., to jared kushner and paul man forth. bject -- fanaforft, subject, forward, clinton, private and confidential. meeting got moved to 4:00 tomorrow at my offices. best, don. mr. lieu: that completes the email chain and under federal law, under the federal election campaign act, you cannot solicit or accept any contribution from a foreign national or foreign country. and the law defines the contribution not as just a monetary donation but anything of value, in kind donation, opposition research.
anything of value violates the law. and in this case, we absolutely have conspiracy to violate the federal election campaign act. i'm a former prosecutor, i know it's very easy to prove a charge of conspiracy. you just have to have the personal take one act in furtherance of the conspiracy. so in this case, when donald trump jr. replies back to the offer of incriminating information and says, i love it, that's one act. he then proceeds to set up a meeting, that's another act. he then shows up at the meeting with jared kushner and paul manafort. that's a third act. that more than completes the crime of conspiracy. we have in black and white right here a violation of federal law. mr. gallego: the other thing we have to consider is this, right now there's a person in the white house that has lied on security clearance. a secured clearance we use to determine whether we shall trust somebody with top secret information for this country.
jared kushner was in a meeting with a foreign agent. now we know that he was in a meeting not just with a foreign agent, but a former and quote-unquote, former, soviet counterintelligence officer. let me tell you something there is no such thing as former counterintelligence officers if you ever work for the soviets. once you are in the k.g.b., you're always in the k.g.b. why was that person in that room? it was not to talk about adoption. it certainly wasn't there to talk about anything else but if anything it was there to pass information and the fact that jared kushner lied in his clearance, lied and omitted it until finally revealed today, really call into question whether that man should be in the white house right now and trusted with this type of sensitive information. ted, awe andy -- you and i were in the military and we had security clearances. if we had this type of mission
in our security clearance what would have been our punishment? mr. lieu: our security clearance would have been suspended, and an investigation would be opened. i'm glad you mentioned kushner. people are asking, why does he still have a security clearance? on the first security clearance form, an fs-86 form , he lied he did not disclose a single meeting with a russian. if you read the form it says if you make a false statement or omit material facts, you can be imprisoned omitted that information. he is then confronted and what does he do. he revises it. so then he submits a second security clearance form. now it turns out he lied on that one too because he did not disclose this latest meeting that happened to be with a russian counterintelligence officer. so then he had to submit a third form. and when you look at his explanation, according to media report , he said his staff hit the send button too soon.
we both know that's not how you submit a clearance form. it's an elaborate process, you have to do a certification, you have to send it electronic, sign a paper and submit that with your signature. very elaborate. now he's lying about the process in which he lied on the three security clearance forms. we don't know why he has security clearance or why he's in the white house. mr. gayay go: what's the motivation for omitting this meeting? there's clearly emails, pointed emails saying why are you going to be attending this meeting. there's a subject line that says clinton emails. there is a subject line that has to do with are augs -- with a russian agent a crown prosecutor, and now we know there is a former soviet counterintelligence agent that just happened to be there. and jared kushner omits it from his security clearance.
that is not an accident. that is a criminal act. a criminal act that any other citizen in this country, any other soldier, sailor, marine, airman if we ever did that, we would be quickly prosecuted under the ucmj. no. i'm controlling time. mr. lieu: let me follow up with what representative gallego said. we have a person in the white house now, with a security clearance, even though he's lied on at least two of those forms, so there actually needs to be an investigation. that security clearance needs to be suspened immediately. but also, you the, for any intelligence official watching this or reading about this, how can you trust jared kushner when he lied on these security clearance forms? it makes a mockery of the process. and keep in mind,s the same person that suggested setting up
a secret back channel with the russians, at the russian embassy, the only reason you'd want to use russian equipment at the russian embassy is to hide information from u.s. intelligence. so even if his security clearance is not suspended, i hope that people working for him do not trust him. mr. gallego: if you start seeing and putting it all together we know there's a clear narrative of jared kushner's involvements with the russians. he tried to set up a back channel, the hen -- then he admits his conversations and -- omits his conversations and meetings in a secure clearance. he continues to lie even though he's brought forth as being untruthful. and now we find ourselveses in a situation where there is basically zero trust that this man in the white house with top stret clearance is not compromised. in conclusion, let me close this. you just heard emails after
emails, imagine this conversation happening the opposite way. imagine a conversation happening with a democrat, or the clintons saying, i have information and 45 timesmoscow is said all together. imagine the idea that you're meeting in private and imagine all the followup lies that happened. what would be occurring right now? what would be occurring is what we saw last year, consistent oversight. but there is none. there is no oversight right now. paul ryan has not taken this by the helm, has not done any type of oversight. the house republicans have abdicated their responsibility and have allowed donald trump and all those other members of his family and the administration that have been compromised to continue being a threat to our national security in the white house. this should not be the way.
partisanship should never be above patriotism. but what we are seeing right now is naked partisanship being exposed and pushed as far as possible in the hopes of protected a faulty president, his administration, and his family. that is not american. that is not what any of us ever signed up for to do. we swore, whether it was in the armed services committee, whether it was when we were in the armed services, whether it was when we came here to congress, to uphold the constitution of the united states and protect it. right now, we can honestly say that's not occurring. there's an absolute abdication happening right now of leadership from house republicans. mr. lieu: thank you. let me conclude by saying that the president said that most
people would have taken this meeting. that's just not true. again, under federal election campaign act, if you solicit or conspire to solicit or show up at a meeting where you expect to get opposition research from a foreign national, that's a violation of federal law. so in fact most people would not have take then meeting. unless they were crooked. and we have an example here of what happens when the al gore campaign got information. they were sent anonymously briefing notice and things that then bush was being briefed on and so on. they took that package and turned it over to the f.b.i. that's what should have happened in this case. and let me sort of conclude as well with thanking representative gallego and this is a pretty big deal. we have people in the white house that believe they're above the law. and the lesson in watergate is that no one is above the law. mr. gallego: thank you.
i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair would remind members to direct all remarks to the chair and to formally yield and reclaim time when under recognition. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher for 30 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: i'm sorry my two colleagues refused to yield any time. when-year talking, especially when they're using phrases like naked partisanship, that's very interesting, isn't it, when we could have had a nice dialogue here? and i was asking for a chance to go into a dialogue so the american people could understand what was being said rather than hese incredible -- naked partisanship of people who disagree but i won't yield my time to have a dialogue about
it. i'm afraid that doesn't cut it. this is yet another example of hat we have seen, people using sinister-sounding descriptions in order to basically distract us from some of the corruption and i might add questionable activities of their own presidential candidate in the last election who was defeated because the american people did not trust that candidate. and by the way, i would like to have asked, i'm sorry that my friends have left, and would yield any time for a question, whether or not they believe that hillary clinton's activities in russia while she was a government official, was she involved in money raising from russian oligarches to the tune of millions, tens of millions of dollars, did she actually -- was
her husband involved in raising this money while she was secretary of state? or while she was a candidate for president of the united states? over in russia? millions of dollars to the clinton foundation and i understand even hundreds of thousands of dollars put in her husband's pocket for a speech that he gave in russia. these things need to be looked at. but instead, what we're hearing about is sinister-sounding words about a meeting, a meeting, where someone said they had some information that would help, yes, the campaign, but the reason it would help the campaign is it was -- there was supposedly information that showed that hillary clinton was involved in some activity that was contrary to the interests of the united states or contrary to the law. and to the law. if someone says they want to
give you information, there's nothing wrong with that. in fact, i would hope my colleagues who just said what is happening on our side of the aisle is naked partisanship, i wonder if the democratic party and my other colleagues in this body are calling for hillary to release all of her emails and make sure that we have under oath an explanation of these transactions to the clinton foundation. but instead, we're hearing all sorts of sinister descriptions of a meeting that was going to give information. i will tell you right now, everybody in this body, if they think there could be information that's important for our country to know from any foreigner, we should talk to them and find out what it is. and it is not illegal to receive information from someone especially if you are engaged in
an activity that's aimed at trying to get understanding on policies that you plan to implement as a leader in the united states, as an legitimated leader. there is absolutely nothing rong -- by the way, i am the hairman of the europe, asian subcommittee, including emerging threats. so in my jurisdiction is russia. should i ever turn down a chance to talk to somebody who has information for me negative or positive about russia? no, i shouldn't. and neither should the trump campaign have ignored any opportunity to receive more information about what was being done by hillary perhaps and the raising of the millions of dollars for the hill ari foundation.
so that was a legitimate thing to ask. and is the information accurate or not accurate? if it's not accurate, you don't want to touch it. you know the democrats -- i shouldn't say the democrats, many people were disturbed that there had been a release of emails during the campaign and a lot of them questioned about this whole russia issue, whether russia or somebody else hacked into the system and released those emails. i think it's important if truth was revealed. if someone is releasing false information, the public should be upset. but should not be upset if they are being given a chance to see more information that is accurate information on this issue. so i would hope the american people -- i trust the american
people are smart enough to see a diversionary tactic using sinister words over and over again to describe something that is perfectly legal and talking to anybody to get more information to help you make your decisions, that's a good thing and not a bad thing. i would yield to my colleague. mr. gohmert: i appreciate so much my very good friend from california with whom i have traveled a abroad and had amazing meetings with representatives of countries around the world. and as i listen to our friends on the other side talk about this issue, it appears very clear what they're saying is every member of the house who has ever met with someone from a foreign country and ask questions whether they believe what they were given or not, is
guilty of a crime and should be damned to hell for all eternity. is that my friend's impression? mr. rohrabacher: it seems to me that's what's being said. and those people are so sinister, you don't listen to them or it may be illegal. but in reality, we are talking about one person meeting with another who may have information and we in the congress and anyone running for public office should be listening and seeing is there information that is important for our country to know. mr. gohmert: if the gentleman would yield, i appreciate the fact that the gentleman from california and i have met with -- he was then the leader of iraq, neither the gentleman from california or i cared for the man. he was prime minister of iraq. he did a great deal of damage to iraq. he along with president obama
dramatically weakened iraq. prime minister malaki -- but we were asking for answers to questions that we consider very serious. for example, i was asking about is commitment to protect the refugees from iran that he had pledged to protect. and my friend from california was asking about the iraqi pledge to help pay us back for some of our costs in making iraq free. and those two issues so infuriated prime minister malaki, we got word later when we were on the c-1230, that we were being banned from iraq by the prime minister. but to hear our friends across the aisle talk, every time one
of them and every time one of us on this side of the aisle have asked, even people we considered to be despicable and done terrible things. we wanted answers that we were committing a crime and demanding those answers. i also know my friend from california got similar treatment from a man we believe is corrupt who was the leader of afghanistan at the time. i don't find any crime or any harm in asking questions and getting answers, even from people that -- for whom we have no respect. i appreciate the gentleman from california yielding. i think it's a good thing. if somebody's got information, even if you don't care for them, to try to get answers to our questions. mr. rohrabacher: we know now people are trying to frighten us and others not to meet with people and not to talk to people. and i wonder why.
as far as i'm concerned, i do not have a blind trust in whatever our intelligence agencies give us. let me note, some of the things that are being quoted, aren't even being quoted from our intelligence agencies during this whole national discussion on what russia's interaction with us has been for the last couple of years. the fact is that these intelligence reports are filled weasel, ll words and making it like it sounds something but put a phrase something to not commit you in defending that particular position as being factual. with that being said, i would hope the american people pay close attention to the sinister words and the weasel words and pay attention to the basic nonsense in telling us, oh, a horrible crime has been
committed now because someone in the trump campaign, whoever it was, i don't care if it was donald trump's relatives or his son or whoever it was, anybody -- in the campaign whatsoever wants to talk to anybody in the world to get information, i think that's a good thing. and now whether or not at that point, it has to be determined whether it's accurate information to move forward with inaccurate information is wrong, but that's your job, too, to verify what somebody is telling you before it influences your policy making or decisions you are making at that moment. with that said, i have another issue that i would like to talk about today. i am the chairman as i mentioned of the subcommittee on europe eur asian emerging threats and i'm a member of the science, space and technology committee
and i'm her to discuss emerging technology that is unleashing new economic dynamic but it could also be negatively impacting on our national security. i have long considered myself a proponent of freedom instead of government controls. i have trusted free people and free markets without optimism that technology and innovation would deal with perplexing challenges to our security and prosperity. in recent years, one of the more exciting innovations helping reshape the way we live is the flukes of digital currency here and globally. thanks to this leap in technology, we are changing -- you know, times are changing right before our eyes. americans have new ways of fighting inflation and handling their personal business
obligations. people with bitcoins living in december potic regimes throughout the world now have the opportunity to protect their assets from abusive and corrupt governments. indeed, the security of the block chain technology will unable a new wave of societal advances that should invigorate our markets and improve lives. however with that potential benefit of digital currency, there is also danger. it imempowers the good people of the world but it could be used by those who have goals that are evil. radical islamic terrorism now is a horrendous threat that hangs overall of us, all the free people in the world, here in the united states and elsewhere. law enforcement throughout the world is now aware that the bitcoin is available for use for terrorists in accomplishing
their gruesome missions. why is it a good tool? it's anonymous. they can transfer a digital currency platform without the usual safeguards that thwart terrorists and criminal activity. anti-money laundering and know your own customers' standards have worked with criminals in recent decades. but now that approach can be technologically undermined by the use of the bitcoin instead of traditional currency. since traditional currencies offer ability to transfer funds, some of our neighbors such as sweden, thailand, vietnam and india have banned their use. mr. speaker, i do not believe that that is a necessary or practical response. banning digital currencies will not prevent terrorists from using them any more than banning
guns will prevent criminals from using them. instead of banning all the digit call currencies because some lack standards, i believe we should encourage digital currencies to implement full money laundering and know your customer standards. these protections should empower our law enforcement and national security professionals to keep terrorists and criminals from -- to keep their finances under control while preserving for the rest of us the freedom to use digital currencies. thus, with the proper type of regulatory looks and seeing what options are available to us, we can prevent terrorists and criminals from financing their operations with bitcoins, but still, the rest of us will be free to use these new digital
currencies and enable america to keep the lead in the world in this new technological advance. light of my chairmanship on emerging threats and my experience in the science committee, i look forward to joining with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to encourage economic innovation brought by the bitcoins, but also to see to it that digital currencies will have strong standards that will thwart the exploitation of this new economic function by terrorists and criminals and other evil forces in the world. so i look forward to working with my colleagues. i think this is a bipartisan issue. and won't try to make it sound sinister at all, because this is something we can work on. and we must keep america always in the forefront of
technological development. with each step forward in technology, there is a potential harm that can be done, but we need to make sure that that's taken into consideration while at the same time that we do not thwart americans from using the ultimate technologies of the day to secure prosperity and secure freedom and to secure our national security with these new technologies. so with that, i would yield back the balance of my time. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.
much my friend from california, dana rohrabacher, making the point that he did. there is nothing either sinister, wrong, criminal, improper, when someone is engaged in an election or when someone is not engaged in an election if offered information that may be helpful, whatever the source, unless it's a known criminal that's going to advise someone about some potential crime, normally not -- there's normally nothing wrong with seeking or even getting that information. i doubt there's anybody on this house floor when offered information from a source about didn'tnent in a campaign at least take some action to see if there was anything legitimate
to it. so, it's just amazing when we know that there -- there's certainly probable cause to believe crimes have been committed in the obama administration yet we got nothing in the way of support in investigating the probable cause of real, legitimate crimes, not those for whom -- for which there is no known criminal statute that would be applicable r that may have been violated, but simply, you know, there may be times when it's bad taste, but the vi rainization of donald trump jr. for inquiring of someone that loretta lynch as attorney general for president obama specifically and
personally stepped in to ensure it's e in this country, just incredible how much is bag meetingdonald trump jr. with somebody that attorney general lynch pulled all kinds of strings to get her in and keep her in the country. and then when you see that picture of this same person sitting right behind the obama ambassador to russia, ambassador mcfall, and you know at these an ings, especially appointed and confirmed official like an ambassador, they don't want somebody directly behind them who is not supportive and not capable of reaching up and
handing them a note with information that may be helpful in them answering a question. we've had countless hearings and i've seen it done countless times. you want somebody behind you that can help provide answers if -- to questions you may not can answer without their help. so there she is. this person that these same friends who pulled all kinds of strings to get her in this ountry, they're all upset that talked to donald trump jr., and he -- i admire the fact that he immediately saw that this was a worthless meeting and walked away from it. so pretty amazing, good judgment to walk away from it once he found out what she was about. i wish that president obama, loretta lynch, hillary clinton
had as good judgment in their meetings with people instead of telling our enemy, and i do consider the man with whom president obama was meeting an enemy. he was not a friend of the united states. and what does president obama do when he doesn't think the microphone can pick him up? he says tell vladimir, putin, president obama's close buddy, tell vladimir, my buddy, that i have a lot more flexibility once i'm past this election. ok, yeah, i'll pass that on. yeah, i'll pass that on. clear intent. there's no mistaking. the intent is, i'll be able to give away more of america's defenses the way i canceled our missile defense system in poland
once i'm re-elected. because then i don't care, i can't be -- i won't be run, can't be defeated in another election so i'll be able to give away a lot more of america's defenses. and what did our friends who are now so upset about donald trump meeting with a russian lawyer, finding out she was not worth meeting with and leaving, what did they do back then? nothing. they defended president trump's actions, either vocally or by their silence while we were raising questions. without nd this week expressing my great isappointment with congress. over the -- a specific detail of
the national defense authorization act. there are a number of things in there that bothered me, i think are big mistakes, i don't think we should be doing, i think we're wasting money. but compromises have to be made. we're making a form of sausage called laws. so we got to compromise son some things but there are some things that are so important that there cannot be a compromise. t's too important. it will result in lives being saved, lives being lost, depending on what we do here in ongress. so our friend, congresswoman vicki hartzler, found, realized as re i did, that the law
would be in the national defense authorization act, all the compromises that had to be made under great leadership, and i'm not being sarcastic, of congressman mac thornberry, did a masterful job handling all the problems that arose, but the law f the ndaa was and will be thunder new law such that president obama and his administration would say the way it's worded, the way it is, authorizes us to decide that an appropriate use of this very limited, more and more precious money for our military to defend us, canned and -- can and should
be used whenever someone requests a sex change operation. reports are that with hormonal treatment, it can be around $130,000 or so per american. -- per person. military commanders advise that they've been told, if you have a military member under your command that asks for a sex hange operation, and you say something like -- have you really thought this through? or they say something like, why don't you talk to a counselor? about this, you give it some more thought, those are career-ending statements that that commander would have made.
that if someone requests a sex change operation, you don't ask questions. you don't refer them to counseling, you don't suggest that that give it more thought. you just sign them up. now the problem there too is that apparently, they're advised that they have about two years minimum that this service member will be out of commission. cannot be deployed. you can't be sending them anywhere because you have months of hormonal treatment leading up to the sex change surgery and then even if there are no complications, the followup and the rehab is quite significant so you better count on at least a couple of years minimum where that service member that military member, cannot be sent anywhere, cannot be ordered deployed, they are useless in
defense of our country as far as filling the immediate needs of the military. and that's astounding. now, potentially some might submit that we have come to find out about maybe the greatest political lob being by any group -- lobbying by any group of our medical practitioners and those who compiled the diagnostic statistic manual referred to as d.s.m. who've had one, two, three, four, five, and each time they've been subjected to political lobbying because they didn't want people who were thinking about a sex change operation and even though their chromosomes would not change,
still indicated they're male or female, they wanted that surgery to change, that was considered to be a very serious illness, psychiatric illness. but with a lot of lobbying, it eventually got downgraded and the most recent downgrading in the d.s.m. is to something called a disforea. went from disorder, to disphoria. but disphoria, if you look it up, it still is, well, one psychiatrist has said it means confusion, basically. you've got transgendered tissue transjenner disphoria. it's the opposite of ewe foreark you're not well, you're not -- of euphoria, you're not well, you're not happy. you have behavioral problems because you're not happy with your gender. for most of our country's history we understood that in
our military it is not to be a societal experiment. e want people who can fight, hopefully not to their death but to the enemy's death, to stop those who would kill us or take our freedom. and it is heartbreaking that when the amendment came to the to r last night for a vote, prevent any of that precious money that's going to save the ives of our military members the amendment lost by five votes. 214-209. in other words, if three people had changed their vote, that amendment passes and no money could be used out of that precious money. they -- precious money they need for bulletproof vest, for
up-armored vehicles to save their lives when an i.e.d. hits, all these things that are so important to our military, we're $3.5 billion to $3.9 billion over 10 years they're projecting to be spent but that of course means before word gets out that if you want to sex change operation if you can get through basic train, i'm not sure about that you may not have to get through basic, but if you can join the military and demand a sex change operation, then you're not deployable, they can't send you to combat for at least two year, we will pay you as a military member, we will provide free, the hormonal treatment, we will take that money that could save another member's life, and we'll spend that on this expensive surgery to change your organs, maybe cut them off or add some, and then
we'll spend more of that money that could save other military members' lives and spend it on your followup and your rehab, all while you can't help them because you're going through this transition. this is a difficult time and breaks my heart. and it's not a civilization-ending thing that happened last night, but when the book one day is written about the rise and fall about what so far has been the free and greatest nation in the history of mankind, this would be something listed as a symptom of why this country lost the next great war because they were re concerned about playing societal experiments than they were with defending their lives and their freedom. , i yield to friend
my friend steve king. mr. king: i have no better friend in this city or this country for that matter. just called to come to this floor to add a few words in to the topic that the gentleman from texas has brought forward and so few others that anyone wants to speak to. the societal experiment that's going on in our military, the greatest military in the history of the world. when the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, talks about how history will be written one day, this isn't a civilization killer but an indication of a civilization killer, i think of the circumstances in a little bit older history back in the 16th century and 17th century rl the ottoman empire were sweeping across the countryside,
they pressed them into slavery. they wanted to have their crack troops and other troops, too, as well, but what they did in order to keep them from reproducing was that they did reassignment surgery on those slaves that they captured that they had put into their troops. and their reassignment surgery, they took them from being a male and suitable to work in the har emand put them out in the field to do battle against the enemy, they didn't have the test tosser own to take on the fight. and they figured out to stop turning these men into unichs. and the old history through that is replete with narrative after
narrative and taking out the knife and cutting these men and some would die and some would live, but none of them had the will to fight. hey decided they were going to keep complete men in their troops where they fought well. that's a lesson from the ottoman empire and we are thinking that we are going to make the military better while people lining up at the recruitment center who have planned to do sexual assignment surgery and know if i can get into the navy, army, air force and marines and become a navy seal and submit to sexual reassignment surgery. doesn't look women will be going into men after they go through seal training. but no way this enhances the
capabilities of our military or the morale and you will never see a platoon that is made up of all the folks that are likely to sign into our military, this policy clearly enacted and advertised as a kneeon sign for people who want a sexual reassignment surgery and they'll be going into the military and the military will say we had to turn this one because he was too heavy or flat feet or congenital defect. but if they don't have those and want sexual reassignment rgery, we'll cut them up and put them off in the recovery room for two years before we can put them to work and use them and they are likely to be discharged to go back into society if their only purpose
was to get the free surgery. can you imagine someone who has now gone into walter reed hospital, taken up a bed, maybe a roommate who was hit by an an i.e.d. or lost a couple of legs in the dangerous service of our country, can you imagine those two beds side by side, one of them missing an arm and a leg, two legs or two arms and the other one saying i just came in for sexual reassignment surgery. i won't say the things that are in my mind. this is one of the most a pallingly stupid things that i have seen the united states congress do. it has some competition. i don't know what's second. it's so bad. and the implications of this are awful, mr. speaker. we need to reverse this somehow. i would add also bob gates, the former secretary of defense
testified before the united states congress that we had an obesity problem with our young people in america that is a national security risk. it's a national security concern and we ought to be adopting michelle obama's healthy and kids' act because we didn't have enough that were available to meet the physical standards to get into the the military and it was a national security risk. those are his exact words, national security risk. well, if we can put the kids on a diet in school because they are a national security risk, isn't this a national security risk when you have all of these resources that are redirected from f-35's and pension plans and raises for our military and the list goes on and on and then they get sexual reassignment, on the part of
the united states congress. i had a similar amendment turned down by the rules committee. but this congress made a significant error on. 24 republicans and every single democrat voted against this. i thank the gentleman from texas from bringing up the topic and i yield back to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: in fact, some people, they sometimes think my very xaggerate, but friend from iowa and i have stood there on the mount top outside of vienna -- mountaintop outside of vienna, where western civilization stood there in the gap and it was all at risk. and the odds were that western civilization was going to end
with the fall of vienna, then the radical islamic group that d taken so much of the territory already, vienna fell, then the rest of europe would fall. there would be no stopping this radical islamic movement through europe and there's a good chance we're not even here in this fashion today. but i thought about that and my friend and i standing up there getting a briefing from an individual who knew the history so well, that this is where one group was, this is where the siege was, that's where the polish group brought cannons that no one in the islamic group thought was possible to get cannons up there. and i thought about that and
reflected on that as president trump was speaking in warsaw, poland, and it was clear how desireous the polish people have always been for freedom. yeah, you can practice what religion you want to, but don't come try to take over our country and tell us we can't pursue christianity. i did not realize until president trump gave that speech there in warsaw when pope john paul imb ii came, they were screaming we want god, as a group. the polish prince or king that who came to the aid of the people of vienna and they
were under siege and were going to be defeated and it met the fall of western civilization. perhaps we headed into a new period of the dark ages and this polish king comes down, determined gets cannons up on this mountaintop that those in the two years seeking a sex change operation and change reassignment, as they call it, ould possibly help during that two-year period. they got cannons up the mountain in position to help stop the obliteration there of the western civilized vienna, to stop the fall of that radical islamic empire from taking over and destroying western civilization, making slaves of
all of those who they overtook. and some, of course, in their party believed that if an individual refused to become a muslim, they should be killed. others believed in the more humane treatment, that, no, you make them slave and as long as they keep paying their tax, which is really an admitance that there is no greater god than the islamic god, as long as they worship and paying that fee to show that they were subserve yent to the islamic god, then they could be allowed to live. those were two problems back in that day. do we let the people live if they won't become muslim or do we just go ahead and kill them?
and many humane thirst thought as long as they will submit to our god and pay the tax to show they are submitting to our god get about ave to for christianity, just pay the tax and still live. vienna doesn't stand. it falls, as was anticipated. we're done. and i can assure my friends here in the house that there was no e who is out there defeating the radical islamic desire to wipe out western civilization who had undergone a sex change operation in the prior two years. this is a risky time in our history, as others have pointed
out, the military, no matter what societal experimentations people want to undertake, what type of lifestyles people want to undertake, the military is intended to protect our freedom so we can pursue these things. and i know president obama was fond of saying, gee, guantanamo guantanamo is a greater recruiting tool, but as i talk to muslim friends -- yes, i do have them from around the world. as i talked to muslim friends in other parts of the world whether afghanistan, egypt, parts of the middle east, north africa, they say, you got to understand, some of the things you do in the united states make for incredible recruiting possible terse for radicals in our muslim faith. that the advertised
in d states congress is favor of taking men and surgicically making them into women with the money that they would use to protect the nation otherwise or taking women and oing surgery to make them men, the united states congress would rather spend that money on that surgery than defeating radical islam, then it is an advertising bonanza for the radical islamists because my muslim friends tell me, the recruits, you're right, if that's how stupid they are, this society has no right to remain on the earth. we need to take them out.
they are too stupid. . a disappointing night last night, disappointing week. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stans adjourned until noon on monday next for -- stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning hour debate.
washington and divide up federal funding to pursue the type of health care system that fits their needs. mr. graham said congressional republicans could still repeal obamacare requiring and requiring large employers to provide it under special budget rules that lock out democrats. read more at washingtontimes .com. >> yesterday senate republicans unveiled their new health care law. .