Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We are here on House Resolution 809. House Resolution 809 deals with two underlying bills. The first one is a conference report related to efforts to combat the opioid crisis that is wreaking havoc in communities across the United States. 46,000 people die----

Mr. BYRNE. I do not.

Mr. BYRNE. As I was saying, 46,000 people die every year of drug overdose. That is one of the things that is covered in the bills that are underlying in this resolution, and we just had over 2 hours of obstruction to try to keep us from considering that bill. The resolution also contains the effort to get us to a conference on the National Defense Authorization Act, which is the policy that defends the United States of America. If we want to keep terrorists from murdering people in the United States, we need to defeat them over there so that they don't come over here. I would ask everybody in this House to get back focused on what this resolution is about: trying to save people who are tragically dying from drug overdose and protecting the people of the United States of America, the number one thing that we in this Congress are here to do. So I am glad that we are back to that because that is important business for this House. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 809 and the underlying bill.

Mr. BYRNE. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. And an opioid bill and not anything else. And I----

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about House Resolution 809 that deals with the National Defense Authorization Act----

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, we are here today on House Resolution 809----

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

Mr. BYRNE. We are here today to consider----

Mr. BYRNE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. May I ask the Chair if I am on the time of the gentleman from Colorado in answering his question?

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud and encourage the ongoing peace process in Colombia. Over the last 52 years, Colombia has witnessed an armed conflict between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The conflict has taken a serious toll on the country: 220,000 people have been killed and more than 6.8 million people have been forced from their homes. The fighting has been especially difficult for the rural areas of the country. But a new day is on the horizon for the people of Colombia. The country is on the verge of a historic peace agreement with the FARC. In fact, the government and the FARC signed a cease-fire agreement on June 23. This was seen as one of the few remaining roadblocks to a final peace agreement. With all that is going on in the world today, it would be easy to miss the important progress taking place in Colombia. The peace process isn't garnering the media attention that some other foreign affairs are, but it is going to have just as important an impact on global affairs. Last year, I had the opportunity to travel to Colombia with the Committee on Armed Services and my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Gallego, whose mother is from Colombia. It didn't take long for me to realize that Colombia is a beautiful and fascinating country, and I was very impressed with the hospitality of the Colombian people. It also became clear during my trip that the majority of Colombian people want things to be better in their country, and they are committed to the peace process. Mr. Speaker, Colombia is our closest and strongest ally in Latin America, so the peace process is very important not only to Colombia, but also to the United States. Their future opportunities are also ours. Colombia has a growing economy with immense potential based on their abundant natural resources and a culture that values hard work. A more stable Colombia will allow the country to further expand their economy, which would be a benefit to us right here at home. At a time when there are so many foreign policy challenges around the globe, Colombia is a rare success story. The country was literally on the verge of becoming a failed state, but now they are a leader in the region. The United States maintains significant bilateral relations and has provided important diplomatic assistance to the Colombian Government, but we have done so without becoming overly involved in their local affairs. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize my strong support for the Colombian peace process, and I call on every Member of this House to also lend their support to that process. We need to encourage our neighbors in South America. I want to commend President Santos for his leadership and his commitment to a lasting peace. I also want to highlight the important work of Ambassador Pinzon. I appreciate his friendship, and I applaud his work to strengthen the partnership between the United States and Colombia. Ultimately, only the people of Colombia can reach the lasting peace agreement that restores justice and order to their country, but the United States can--and I believe we must--stand ready to assist the Colombian Government as they finalize this process and then as they move their country out of conflict and into a period of stability and lasting peace.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 783 provides for further consideration of H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The resolution provides for a structured rule and makes in order 75 amendments. The rule also provides suspension authority for Thursday. I want to kick off today's debate by making one thing very clear: the underlying bill is a very good bill. I know some of my colleagues may have some things to say that they would want to have added or a few things they would want to see changed. But all things considered, this is a very good bill. Let me tell you why. This bill provides funding for the entire United States military, including critical funding to help fight the Islamic State and others who wish to do us harm. This bill ensures that our military receives the 2.1 percent pay raise they deserve, instead of the 1.6 percent pay raise requested by President Obama. An important function of our military is research and development of new technologies and weapons systems, so this bill provides funding for those efforts. This bill makes important investments in military readiness by providing for equipment procurement for each of the service branches. We are sending far too many of our servicemembers into harm's way with outdated or damaged equipment, so this bill also includes much-needed funding for maintenance operations. This bill also includes vital funding for the Defense Health Program, which provides care for our troops, while also spurring investment in important areas like traumatic brain injuries, cancer research, suicide prevention programs, and sexual assault prevention and response. Now, I seriously doubt that any of my colleagues disagree with those functions. So this should be a bipartisan bill that passes with overwhelming support, especially considering all that is going on in the world today. Just look at what happened this past weekend in Orlando. A person influenced by radical Islamic terrorists took the lives of innocent Americans. Well, this bill includes funding to help fight the groups and organizations like the Islamic State that are spreading this radicalization. This bill is critical if we are to defeat the radical organization that is spreading terror all around the globe. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, I expect that today's debate will focus little on what is actually in this bill. I fear that today's debate will result in conversations about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the United States military. That is a real shame, because this bill is so very important. I know some of my colleagues are going to express concerns about procedure and the fact that this is a structured rule. So I want to share some quick facts with you. More importantly, this rule makes in order 75 amendments out of 105 submitted to the Rules Committee. Forty- three of these amendments--over half--are Democrat and bipartisan amendments. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of talk here about regular order. Well, regular order means that the House works. Regular order doesn't mean chaos. Regular order doesn't mean that Members get to offer poison pill amendments just to kill a bill. Regular order is about ensuring we can do the business that the American people elected us to do and that they expect us to do. Let's be real for a second. Only in Washington are people debating or worried about whether a bill to fund our troops comes to the floor under a structured rule or an open rule. You know what people are worried about in homes from Maine to Hawaii? They are worried about the safety and security of their families. So let's not get caught up, especially on this bill, in political games. The men and women who put their lives on the line each and every day to keep us safe deserve better than that. And the American people deserve better than that. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member, 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentlewoman's positive words about the underlying bill. She pointed out a number of things about this bill that are very good indeed. I hear that she disagrees with the use of the overseas contingency account for funding part of what is going on here, but we are in a war. We are in a war overseas, and we are going to have to use that account to fight that war overseas. I also heard her say that we need to do more than just have a moment of silence, as we did the other night. Acting on this bill does something very important to stop terrorists over there from coming over here and harming us, or to stop terrorists over there from being able to inspire some of our own citizens to attack us. I have said many times, if you want to stop terrorism in the United States, it is better to defeat them over there. The underlying bill does that. It has been worked out carefully, in a bipartisan fashion, as the gentlewoman said, with the Department of Defense, so that they have what they need to protect us, because the most important way to stop violence from terrorists hitting us here at home is to make sure those terrorists are destroyed abroad. I am glad the gentlewoman from New York brought up the issue of open rules. To have this debate, I think it is important to look at the minority's record when it comes to openness and fairness on appropriations bills. When the gentlewoman was chair of the Rules Committee in the 111th Congress, they also had a structured rule for the Department of Defense Appropriations. So how many amendments did they make in order? Fifteen. This bill makes in order 75 amendments to the Defense Appropriations bill. That is a pretty stark difference, Mr. Speaker. Let's not just look at the Defense Appropriations legislation. On the Energy and Water bill, which this House considered under an open rule a few weeks ago, the Democrat majority considered it under a structured rule and made just 21 amendments in order. What about the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill in fiscal year 2010? The gentlewoman made just eight amendments in order. The House considered the same bill earlier this year under an open rule. A few more numbers for you from fiscal year 2010. Only 5 amendments were made in order through the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, just 23 for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, 17 for Financial Services, and 1-- only 1--amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. Then, for fiscal year 2011, under the Democrat majority, only two appropriations bills were presented to the House, both under structured rules. They were considered, and then they just stopped the appropriations process altogether. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to talk a big game about open rules and the importance of fairness; but, if you look at the record, it is clear that this House has been much more open and much fairer under Republican leadership. Our Conference wanted to restore open rules in the appropriations process; however, the minority has abused the process, and we have no choice but to take the steps necessary to ensure we can get the business of the American people done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the gentlewoman, and I do want to say this to her and to all of my colleagues in the House: The American people are worried. They are fearful, and they are fearful because there are people in other places who want to come here and do us harm simply because we are different from them. We are Christians, or we are a different type of Muslim from them, or we are LGBT, or we believe in all the principles that make America great. They want to come here and destroy all of us. The attack on Sunday was an attack on every citizen of the United States of America. People are fearful that those terrorists will come here or they will find more people who are here now and inspire them to do the horrendous act that we saw done Saturday night, early Sunday morning. They want us to defend them. We defend them by authorizing and appropriating the money to pay for the activities of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. That is what this bill is about. That is what we should be debating. That is what the people of the United States want us to do. So we have put together a rule that is going to get the people's work done and provide the money to defend them from people that would harm us. That is the least we could do in reaction to what happened the other night, but it is a very, very important step for the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, I, again, urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 783 and the underlying bill.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I do not.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Rules Committee is exactly right. We made in order his amendment that would allow him to have a debate on this floor on the AUMF. I also agree with him that it is probably not enough time to have a full debate on the AUMF. We talked about this several times in the Rules Committee, and he and I have a common understanding of the need for us to have a full debate on this floor on an AUMF. I agree with the gentleman, so we made his amendment in order. I think he would like for us to go beyond that and actually bring an AUMF itself to the floor so we could have a fuller debate. When the time is right--and I don't know when that is going to be--I am going to be supportive of that. I have written letters in that respect, so I believe in that. I want to point out to him that we made his amendment in order. We made his amendment in order and 74 others. That is 60 more amendments that were made in order on the Defense Appropriations bill than when the Democrats were in control of this House. So I have heard enough about this closed debate, closed rules. We have a structured rule to bring order out of chaos, and we have allowed many, many, many more amendments than the Democrats ever allowed on appropriations bills. This is a good rule. It is a fair and balanced rule that allows for a full debate on issues. Some of these amendments I don't agree with, Mr. Speaker, but I thought they should be made in order, as did everybody else in the Rules Committee who voted for the rule. I know the Democrats didn't. This is a good rule, and I hope that we will adopt this rule and move forward with the debate on these important issues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings during the former Members program be printed in the Congressional Record and that all Members and former Members who spoke during the proceedings have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks.

Mr. BYRNE

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

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the House for listening to me. I ask for a positive vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with the ranking member that we take great pride in opportunities for our military around the world to do things of a humanitarian nature. That is one of the hallmarks of the United States. I am thinking more in this circumstance, however, about the needs of these children. I would not put my children out where they are talking about putting these children in my district. I daresay none of us would want our children to be in these places. It is simply not safe for them. With this Zika threat that is out there, we can't say that they are not going to be exposed to mosquitos that we know are vectors for this disease. Unfortunately, where I live, this time of year, we have tropical storms, and we have hurricanes. Those children can't stay there in temporary housing. This is simply not the right place to put them. There are other facilities that the Federal Government owns that are military facilities that are appropriate, that are closer to the border. And HHS is simply refusing to do its job by putting them in those places and burdening the Department of Defense facilities by putting them in those places, and they are not the right places for these children. I understand the gentleman's remarks. I agree with virtually everything that he said, but I think, in this particular circumstance, this amendment is in order. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking both the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for the fine work they have done in this underlying bill. I have been with them on a couple of occasions, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude. The bipartisanship showed in this is a great reflection on our institution. I regret that I have to offer this amendment, but something has come up since the committee had its meeting that I could not foresee. My amendment will address a serious issue relating to unaccompanied alien children being housed at the Department of Defense facilities across the United States. The Department of Health and Human Services has recently made agreements with various defense facilities across the U.S. about housing unaccompanied minors who are caught crossing the southern border. The large number of migrants from Central and South America crossing our southern border is a serious humanitarian crisis, and I understand the need to responsibly handle this situation with compassion. That said, it simply makes no sense for these individuals to be held at military installations. These facilities often pose serious safety issues for children. Some of the children could be placed near live artillery ranges around active military airfields. I represent a district in coastal Alabama, and my office recently learned that the Department of Health and Human Services was evaluating housing illegal immigrants at Navy outlying airfields right near the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Chairman, these are airfields where they do touch- and-goes, where you have pilots that are being trained trying to learn how to do it right. Last time I checked, we try to keep children away from airfields, not put them close to them. Even worse, these facilities lack basic infrastructure needs. There is no sewage, and as far as I know, there is no potable water. And there are no shelters there or buildings that could be turned into shelters. This means temporary housing would be set up at a Navy airfield on the Gulf Coast in the middle of hurricane season in a low- lying wet area that is prone to many mosquitos in a place we know is a major threat for Zika. The idea just defies logic. There are other horror stories of housing these migrants and how it has impacted our military. For example, at Fort Hood in Texas, units have been unable to train on ranges. This has a direct and negative impact on military readiness. At a time when we face so many challenges around the globe, it just makes no sense to alter the intended use of our military facilities to serve a completely different purpose. My amendment would simply prohibit the Department of Defense from using any funds to alter existing facilities or construct new ones for the purpose of providing temporary housing for unaccompanied alien children. There are other nondefense facilities near the border that are available. They do not have to use military facilities. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment as we work to ensure that defense funds are not spent on issues outside the mission of the Department of Defense. I reserve the balance of my time.