Providing for Consideration of Conference Report on S. 2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 937 provides for consideration of the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017. This marks the 55th consecutive year that the House and Senate are coming together to pass a bill to authorize spending and set policy for our Nation's military.
Just as important, as is the case with most of our work on the Armed Services Committee that I have the privilege to serve on, this was a bipartisan process that allowed for numerous members to have input into the final bill. That is a testament to the great work and leadership of Chairman Mac Thornberry, Ranking Member Adam Smith, our subcommittee chairmen and the entire committee staff. This is truly a professional team that puts in long hours to make this bill possible, and they deserve a lot of credit for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I have said on this floor many times before that our military faces a serious readiness crisis. Budget cuts have really thinned out our military and hurt our ability to train and prepare for conflict.

One of the most startling examples of this readiness crisis is the fact that some of our marines have been forced to get parts for their F-18s off of planes in a museum. That is simply absurd and it is deeply troubling.
Just as bad, less than one-third of Army forces are at acceptable readiness levels for ground combat and our pilots are getting less training than many of our adversaries.

Thankfully, this NDAA stops the drawdown of the military and authorizes critical funding for the operation and maintenance of our military. The bill authorizes important funding for training, helps rebuild outdated infrastructure, and ensures our military men and women have the munitions they need for ongoing operations.

The bill also provides for a 2.1 percent pay increase for our military. This is the largest pay raise for our troops in 6 years, and it is especially important for our military families.

Additionally, the bill supports our Nation's military operations around the globe. As we fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and continue to have a presence in Afghanistan, it is vital that our military has the tools they need to carry out their mission and defeat radical Islamic terrorism.

Just as important, this NDAA provides for a continued military presence in Europe to support our allies and deter Russian aggression, as well as resources to support U.S. operations in the ever-important Pacific.

Finally, the NDAA includes some important reforms to make our military and the Pentagon more effective and more efficient. This includes updates to the Goldwater-Nichols Act to improve the overall organizational structure at the Pentagon and throughout our military.

The bill builds upon recent reforms to the Pentagon's acquisition programs to cut down on red tape and spur innovation and research.

It also updates the Uniform Code of Military Justice to promote accountability within our military.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, but it alone will not be enough to fully turn the tide back in favor of the fully trained, fully capable, and fully equipped military that we need.

Congress and the incoming President must act early next year on a funding bill to fully fund our military, and we need to go above even what is included in this bill. As Chairman Thornberry has indicated, we need to push for a defense supplemental that includes important military programs that were, unfortunately, left out of this final bill.

I look forward to working with Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, the Appropriations Committee, and the incoming administration to get this funding bill taken care of as soon as possible next year because, without supplemental funding, we will leave the job half done.

While this is just one step in ensuring our military is ready for the fight, it is an important one nonetheless; so I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this truly bipartisan legislation. For the 55th consecutive year, let's send a message to our servicemembers that supporting the United States military isn't a Republican goal or a Democrat goal--it is an American goal. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 937 and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is not unusual for me to come down here to handle pieces of legislation for the Rules Committee that pertain to our national defense and find myself in a debate about issues that have nothing to do with national defense. Whatever else you can say about the issue about the President or the President-elect providing tax returns, it has nothing to do with the defense of the United States of America. It has nothing to do with authorizing what the Army, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Navy need to defend this country.

So whatever may be the merits of the proposal we just heard from the gentlewoman from California, it is totally irrelevant to the piece of legislation and the resolution on the rules before this body. So I think that it is an interesting argument. Maybe there is another time to have it, but this is not that time.

We need to stay focused on what needs to be authorized to defend the United States of America, and I would urge my colleagues to reject the notion that we just heard. I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. The Presidential election is over. Maybe some people would like to relitigate the results, but certainly the National Defense Authorization Act is not the place to do that. So we need to get back to the focus of what we are here about today, and that is authorizing the defense of the United States of America.

I appreciate the gentleman's support for the rule. I appreciate his support, which he says is unusual for the underlying bill. I also agree with him, as I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma agree with him, about the need for us in the future to address an authorization for the use of military force in the Middle East.

I don't know what the authorization is under law for what we are undertaking today in Yemen, what we are undertaking today in Libya, or what we are undertaking today in other countries like Somalia. I hope the new administration will take a complete new look at that and come to us and tell us what they think a real strategy for success and victory is. Now, that is something we could all get together and authorize. This is not the piece of legislation to address it, and I appreciate the fact that my friend is willing to drop his concerns about that to support it.

We are here to do one very important thing--and it is the most important thing that the Congress does--and that is to provide for the defense of the American people, pure and simple. This rule, the underlying legislation, does that.

There is more work to be done at the beginning of next year, and I hope and am confident that there will be a real effort to come back and do that. At this point in time, it is important that we move forward with this National Defense Authorization Act for the 55th straight year.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 937 and the underlying bill.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 937 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5386) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require candidates of major parties for the office of President to disclose recent tax return information. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5386.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source