Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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 The bill authorizes important funding for training, helps rebuild outdated infrastructure, and ensures our military men and women have the munitions they need for ongoing operations.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.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee and a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 937 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

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.

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

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Submarine USS Drum for its service to our nation during World War II and subsequent years following the war. The Submarine USS Drum (SS-228) was laid down on September 11, 1940, at the Portsmouth, New Hampshire Naval Shipyard, where her construction took just eight months. She was launched on May 12, 1941. The USS Drum arrived at Pearl Harbor in 1942, and she was the first new submarine to arrive at the base since the day of infamy, December 7, 1941. Upon her arrival to the Pacific Ocean, the USS Drum fought gallantly, earning twelve Battle Stars over an illustrious four-year career during World War II. Before the end of the war, the USS Drum sank 15 vessels with a total tonnage of 80,580. Following World War II, the USS Drum was decommissioned. She was then deployed as a reserve training submarine on the Potomac River in Washington, DC. After a long deployment, the USS Drum was set to be retired and scrapped in 1968. In 1969, the USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park wisely added the USS Drum. The Memorial Park was created in Mobile, Alabama in 1965 in order to honor all Alabamians, living and dead, who have worn the uniform of all branches of the United States Armed Forces in defense of our country. Since the USS Drum's inclusion to the Park, she has become an internationally known attraction. Additionally, she has been acknowledged as the oldest surviving World War II submarine in existence. The USS Drum was also declared a National Historic Landmark in 1986. On behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I would like to encourage everyone to join me in celebrating the Submarine USS Drum on its 75th anniversary of being commissioned into the United States Navy on November 19, 1941.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my straightforward amendment calls for the Army Corps of Engineers to perform a gulf coast oyster bed recovery assessment. Over the last 20 years, the oyster industry on the Gulf Coast has faced some serious challenges. Hurricane Katrina destroyed so many of our oyster reefs. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill blanketed many oyster growing areas and resulted in substantial harvest reductions. More recently, flooding in 2011 and earlier this year produced increased freshwater discharges into many parts of the Gulf and threw off the mix of fresh- and saltwater that oysters need to thrive. In 2001, oyster landings in the Gulf totaled 25.5 million pounds; in 2014, which is the most recent data available, oyster landings in the Gulf were down to 19.9 million. This is a dangerous decline that really impacts our oystermen and the overall coastal economies. This industry is especially important to the Gulf Coast. The oyster industry generated nearly $100 million in oyster landings by fishermen in the Gulf States in 2014. And we aren't just talking about the oystermen themselves. Having a successful oyster industry also benefits processors, restaurants, transportation, tourism, wholesalers, and retailers. Mr. Chairman, I have visited with our local oystermen, and they are really struggling. It is heartbreaking to hear their stories. This is their livelihood, but also a way of life for these Americans. We can and we must do more to support their industry. My amendment would pave the way for a partnership between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Gulf States to explore ways to improve future prospects for oysters. The assessment will address the beneficial use of dredged material and provide substrate for oyster bed development. Similar work has been done with the oyster industry in the Chesapeake Bay, and it has been a great success. I also want to point out that improving the oyster beds on the Gulf will also benefit the ecosystem and environment as a whole. As filter feeders, oysters provide significant water quality benefits and, as an important prey species, they support finfish, such as redfish and other species, further up the food chain. States have already been working to improve conditions for the oyster industry through the use of BP settlement money, but further partnerships with the Army Corps of Engineers will go a long way. I appreciate Chairman Shuster and his staff for working with me on this amendment and for all his work on the underlying bill. Ultimately, I urge my colleagues to stand up for our Gulf Coast oystermen and support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask everyone to support this very important amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this legislation to require a 6-month delay in the Department of Labor's new overtime rule. This is an ill-advised regulation that will result in hardworking Americans losing their jobs and less economic growth. Don't take my word for it. Let's look at what some actual business leaders and organizations had to say about the change. Richard, a businessman in Birmingham, says that he ``will cut back on employee hours as much as possible since raising their compensation is not my option.'' Ability Alliance of West Alabama, which provides assistance to more than 600 intellectually disabled individuals wrote that ``the untenable financial pressure resulting from the proposed changes would force us into disastrous service reductions and program closures.'' Greg from Vinemont, Alabama, is much more direct. He writes that he ``will have to lay people off to meet the overtime demands.'' First Heritage Credit, LLC wrote to the Department of Labor that ``increased costs cannot simply be passed on, and the proposed rule will mean fewer branch openings, fewer new hires, and fewer lending options to the communities we serve.'' Our Nation's education institutions will be hit especially hard by the change. A representative from the University of Alabama wrote that ``the proposed regulation puts more pressure on the educational system as a whole. Institutions will either reduce the level of services and programs or will be required to maintain services and programs with inadequate staffing. Regardless, the quality of education will suffer.'' All told, this change will cost the University of Alabama system $17 million in just the first year. These are just a few stories about the reality of the overtime change. These are real people, real families who will suffer. I think this change should be reworked altogether, but, if that is not an option, we should at least delay this rule in order to provide relief to these businesses and organizations.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mayor Richard Long of Jackson, Alabama. Since 2000, Mayor Long has led the City of Jackson. Under his leadership, the city has seen the quality of life increase, as well as economic growth. Mayor Long's service to his country and community started early in his life. A graduate of the University of Southern Mississippi, he served in the United States Navy Reserves for nine years, including two years of active duty. In 1962, he was awarded the Cuban Blockade Medal for his contribution to the Cuban Naval Blockade. He has also been a lifelong member of VFW Post 5335. His service to Jackson started as early as 1979, when he joined the Jackson Volunteer Fire Department. He would go on to serve on the Jackson City Council representing District 2 (1984 to 1988) and District 3 (1992 to 2000). After being elected mayor in 2000, Mayor Long went to work to improve the quality of life for Jackson's residents. During his tenure, the city has made major investments and improvements to city infrastructure. Notable projects include the Jackson Police Complex, Municipal Court Building, public library expansion, senior citizens complex, water treatment plant, softball stadium, tennis complex, and high school athletic complex. Mayor Long has been an especially strong advocate for education in his community. As Mayor, he oversaw construction of the new Joe M. Gillmore Elementary School, as well as updates and improvements to other programs. The schools in Jackson are recognized as some of the best in the region, and Mayor Long has a lot to do with that. In 2008, Mayor Long was named ``Mayor of the Year'' by the Alabama Communities of Excellence Programs. This is just one of many honors and recognitions he has received throughout his career. Mr. Speaker, Mayor Richard Long will be retiring from public service in November. I know his leadership and dedicated service will be missed, but his contributions to the City of Jackson will live on for decades to come. On behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to thank Mayor Long for his service and wish him all the best in the future.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 879 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 879 allows for the consideration of H.R. 5931, the Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act. The rule makes in order all five amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. The rule also provides authority for the House to expeditiously consider a continuing resolution. On June 24, 2015, President Obama stood in the Roosevelt Room of the White House and said: ``I am reaffirming that the United States Government will not make concessions, such as paying ransom, to terrorist groups holding American hostages.'' This position shouldn't have been surprising. It has long been the position of the U.S. Government to not pay ransoms to terrorist organizations, for doing so only encourages further kidnappings and puts more American lives at risk. Despite this reassurance from President Obama, on January 17, 2016, an unmarked cargo plane landed at a European airport. On this plane were wooden pallets stacked with unmarked foreign currency--$400 million worth, to be exact. Who was waiting at the airport to accept this money? The Islamic Republic of Iran. On that exact same day, several Americans who had been held prisoner in Iran were released. That, Mr. Speaker, is a ransom payment. Since then, we have learned that the full U.S. payment to Iran totaled $1.7 billion. The money was related to a decades-old dispute about an Iranian arms sale. There are a lot of concerning issues at play here. First, by giving money to Iran, the United States is supporting the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran uses their money and resources to support groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other radical terrorist groups in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Iran is no friend of the United States, and their efforts have resulted in the deaths of U.S. citizens and servicemembers. So why in the world is the United States sending them cash payments in the first place? Second, the United States should never pay a ransom. I know they claim that the $1.7 billion payment was a ``settlement,'' but let's get real here for a minute. The payment was made on the exact same day the Americans were released. Let's look in the dictionary for just a moment. ``Ransom'' is defined as ``a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner.'' That is exactly what happened here. Iran knows it was a ransom payment. An Iranian general was quoted as saying that, ``the money was returned for the freedom of the U.S. spy, and it was not related to the nuclear negotiations.'' So Iran knows it was a ransom. The American people know it was a ransom. Well, how about the State Department? When pushed on this topic by the media, a State Department spokesman said that it wasn't ransom but, rather, ``leverage.'' What is the difference? The American prisoners in Iran were not released until the cash payments occurred. You could try to hide the truth by calling it ``leverage'' or a ``coincidence,'' but the fact is this payment was a ransom. Just ask the Obama Justice Department. Press reports indicate that Assistant Attorney General John Carlin raised the concern that the cash payment to Iran would send a signal to Iran and the world that the U.S. had changed its ransom policy. This isn't some radical conspiracy theory we are talking about here. This is the exact same concern raised by the Justice Department under President Obama--the people he appointed. Since this ransom payment occurred, Iran has detained several more foreign citizens, including Americans, French, British, and Canadians. Sadly, I expect our Iranian friends are already making their ransom demands. The third major concern I have is that the payments were clearly done in a way to hide them from the American public. The payments were made in cash. According to an international body responsible for combating money laundering, known as the Financial Action Task Force, the ``physical transportation of currency'' is ``one of the main methods used to move criminal assets, launder money, and finance terrorism.'' If this whole ordeal was public and on the up-and-up, then why did the U.S. make this payment in cash? The Obama administration originally said that the payment had to be in cash because financial sanctions prevent us from engaging in wire transfers with Iranian banks. Well, it turns out that isn't true. In fact, on at least two occasions, the U.S. has made wire transfers to the Iranian Government. According to Politico, in July 2015, the U.S. sent Iran approximately $848,000 to settle a claim over architectural drawings. The wire transfers didn't stop there though. The U.S. wired Iran almost $10 million in April of this year to pay for 32 metric tons of heavy water. Here is another issue with the cash payments. Iran has a track record of money laundering, and making cash payments will result in it being even harder to track their illicit activity. Cash does not have an electronic signature, so the money could eventually become untraceable. This will make it almost impossible for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to track where the money is going. In other words, the cash could be transferred to a group like Hamas or Hezbollah and the United States may never know. This is deeply troubling. So, Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes one thing crystal clear. The United States Government is not in the business of paying ransom. Specific to Iran, the legislation will prohibit future cash payments to Iran until the nation stops sponsoring terrorism and is no longer involved in money laundering. To boost transparency and accountability, the legislation also requires 30-day congressional notification and review of any future settlements related to the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal. This way Congress will have an opportunity to review any future payments instead of them being secretly executed in the dark of night. Ultimately, the United States cannot continue to give in to Iran. Whether it is their nuclear program or their kidnapping of U.S. citizens, we simply cannot keep making deals with Iran in which the Ayatollah benefits and the American people suffer. We need to stop empowering Iran and, instead, start weakening them. We must stop giving in to Iran and start standing up to Iran. By putting our foot down, the American people and our allies in the Middle East will be safer and stronger. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 879, so we can move forward with consideration of this important bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here today to talk about a bill that would address yet another foreign policy and national security failure by the Obama administration. The other issues that have been brought up are important issues, but that is not what we are talking about today in this rule. The gentleman from Michigan knows probably far better than I do that there are a number of people around here working on the Flint issue. We could have a bill on the floor of this House as early as next week. That is certainly my hope and the hope of a lot of other people. I am not privy to all of what is going on there, but I understand that may be coming. That is not what we are here about today. It is not unusual for me to stand up here when I am managing one of these rules and hear our friends on the other side want to bring up everything other than the topic of what is in the rule because they don't want to talk about the foreign policy and national security failures of the Obama administration. Well, the American people want us to do something about that. They are worried when they see somebody put bombs in trash cans in New York, when somebody stabs people to death in Minnesota. They want to see us doing something. We are trying to do something about that with numerous pieces of legislation that we bring forward in this House; and whenever we bring them up, we hear from the other side about everything else. Well, today we are here to talk about stopping this President and future Presidents from sending pallets of cash to Iran. That is what we are talking about. So I want us to get back to that debate because that is an important debate for the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. The gentleman said earlier in his remarks that there are times when the United States has to have interactions with bad people. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I understand that. We do. But we should be wise in doing so. He and I completely agreed about the ill wisdom of the deal that President Obama struck with Iran; nonetheless, he struck the deal. He said that there are 200 Iranian claims pending. I have no idea if any of those claims are meritorious. But if even one of them is meritorious, I don't think he would agree--and I know I don't agree, and the vast majority of people in America don't agree--that you pay such a claim by sending pallets of cash. Why would they do that? Why would any President of the United States send pallets of cash to the leading state sponsor of terrorism? It is to hide what they were doing, and they have been found out. We should never do that with anyone, but particularly not with an enemy. The other thing that this bill provides, besides a prohibition on that--and that is so common sense that I don't know how we could disagree about it--is it requires congressional notification. Don't we want the Congress, as a coequal branch of government, to know before we pay money to the leading state sponsor of terrorism? Don't we want to let the American people know what is going on? This is a very commonsense bill. The people of the United States expect us to do nothing less than this. So while I appreciate some of the other things we heard about it, some of the other issues they mentioned, let's focus on this. Let's at least get this done so that this President and no President can ever, ever again pay ransom to Iran. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 879 and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.