Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, unlike our European forebears, the Framers made clear that our Nation would have no state church. Instead, under the First Amendment, all will be protected in the free exercise of the religion of their choosing, and we have a proud tradition of conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, working together to protect this free exercise right. In the 1963 case of Sherbert v. Verner, the liberal Justice William Brennan mandated that any government intrusion into one's free exercise must meet the most stringent standard of judicial review, strict scrutiny. It was actually the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote the 1990 opinion in Employment Division v. Smith that rolled back the protections of Sherbert. Fortunately, 3 years later, a Democrat Congress and a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, rallied large, bipartisan majorities to legislatively overturn Smith in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, otherwise known as RFRA, and restores strict scrutiny when the government seeks to invade the free exercise of religion. RFRA had 170 cosponsors. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) were original cosponsors. It passed by a voice vote in the House and 97-3 in the Senate. On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 11478 banning Federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in hiring. Unfortunately, despite our broad history of working together to protect the free exercise right, the President refused to provide conscience protections for religious-based organizations who engage in government contracting. This amendment would clarify that existing religious freedom protection already in law under the RFRA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and President Bush's Executive Order 13279 would apply, irrespective of the amendment offered by Mr. Maloney. We can debate the merits of Executive Order 11478; however, we should have no problem ensuring that religious entities still enjoy the protections of the free exercise of religion. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I accept his offer. I look forward to working with him. We have got to start somewhere, and this is a good place to start. I heard the gentlewoman's remarks. The Wall Street Journal reported that this agency caused an increase in oil prices by one of its malfunctions. So I don't think it is quite a perfect agency as she made it out to be. This is a point that we need to make. And I intend to continue to make this point as we go through the appropriations process. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit any funding from going to the Energy Information Administration, which under this bill is set to receive $122 million in taxpayer money. Mr. Chairman, rule XXI of the House rules prohibits funding programs that are not authorized under law. The authorization process is so important because it gives Congress the ability to set each agency's agenda, provide proper oversight, and ensure the agency is fulfilling the mission it was designed by Congress to meet. Nearly one-third of the Federal discretionary spending goes to programs whose mandate to exist has expired. In this bill, we will fund 28 programs that have expired authorizations, many which expired in the 1980s. One program that we are funding has existed since the 1970s, but has never been authorized by Congress. The Energy Information Administration, which this amendment would block funding for, is one of the worst offenders. Its authorization expired in 1984, over 30 years ago. That means that the last time this agency received proper congressional instructions, oversight, and review, the Los Angeles Raiders had won the Super Bowl, Ronald Reagan was in the White House, and ``Ghostbusters'' was in the theaters. The Energy Information Administration has seen its fair share of challenges since it was last authorized. In fact, a few years ago The Wall Street Journal wrote an article about how errors by the EIA caused a significant jump in oil prices. The same story noted that the agency was vulnerable to hacking and that information could be easily compromised, yet this body has not acted on an authorization. Mr. Chairman, I don't question that there may be some important functions performed by this agency, but at some point we must have accountability in the authorization process. If my amendment is approved, we can send a message as a House that we are serious about fiscal discipline and demand that, if a program is worthy to receive taxpayer funds, it should be authorized by the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's words. He is a man of his word. I appreciate his understanding the importance of these projects. Having heard his words, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BYRNE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would allow for a number of important Army Corps of Engineers projects in my home district of coastal Alabama to move forward. In many areas, our Nation's waterways are the lifeblood of the economy. Being from a port city, I certainly understand this and appreciate the work the Army Corps of Engineers does to keep our waterways well maintained. I know the Army Corps works hard in tandem with Congress to prioritize projects to keep our waterways and ports open for commerce. Unfortunately, at times, it seems like smaller projects in our more rural areas get ignored or forgotten altogether. While they may not include a major waterway, these projects are vital to many of our local communities and have a significant economic impact from commercial and recreational fishing as well as tourism in general. My amendment seeks to prioritize some projects in southwest Alabama that are long overdue. These include a project to dredge Fly Creek in Baldwin County, where depths need restoring after severe flooding in 2014. Another project would allow for Dog and Fowl Rivers to be dredged to help accommodate commercial and recreational fishing. This project hasn't been touched since 2009. Yet another project that needs attention is Bayou Coden, which is an important area for local shipbuilding. I must thank the Army Corps of Engineers for their attention to a few projects in coastal Alabama, such as dredging Perdido Pass and the Bon Secour River. These are critical projects, but more work remains. Mr. Chairman, I understand that my amendment may not be allowed under House rules, but I believe it is important to have this debate and remind the Committee on Appropriations as well as the Army Corps of Engineers about the importance of these smaller projects that really make a huge difference in communities across the United States. In these tight budget times, I know it can be difficult to balance the need for major Army Corps projects with smaller projects like the one I have mentioned, but I hope the Army Corps will work with Congress to seek a proper balance that ensures our smaller waterways receive the maintenance and attention they deserve. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act regarding religious freedom. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attempted to use this amendment as a wedge in an effort to divide the American people. I want to take a few minutes to discuss the truth and the facts about its impact. In September of 1789, the First Congress considered demands made by many participants in the State conventions which called for ratifying the U.S. Constitution. In response to many of those concerns, Congress approved, by a voice vote, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and sent it to the States for ratification. The States ratified it in December of 1791. The first two clauses of the First Amendment address religious freedom. The first prohibits an establishment of religion so that citizens would not be forced to support a national church, as was the case in Great Britain. The second clause prohibits any government act that inhibits the free exercise of religion by a citizen, thereby assuring that the government cannot dictate religious beliefs or interfere with citizens as they practice and live out their faith. Historically, we have a proud tradition of Republicans and Democrats working together to protect free exercise under the First Amendment. A great example of this is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed this House by a voice vote in 1993. Unfortunately, basic principles of free exercise are under attack today. In response, Mr. Russell's limited amendment would extend religious liberty protection to four categories of government contractors. It is important to note that one doesn't lose constitutional rights if he or she seeks to become a contractor of the government. Hence, contractors are protected in the free exercise of their religious beliefs and practices. The Russell amendment makes explicit these contractors' rights to such protection in the employment of people who work for them. So let's look at the Russell amendment. It states: ``Any branch or agency of the Federal Government shall, with respect to any religious corporation, religious association, religious educational institution, or religious society that is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal government contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative agreement, provide protections and exemptions consistent with sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . and section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . '' Again, note that the Russell amendment is limited to these four categories of religious entities, and it does not apply to other private entities or individuals. Mr. Speaker, the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a landmark civil rights law which bans discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title 7 of the act deals with discrimination in the workplace. Section 702 specifically protects the four categories of religious employers listed in the Russell amendment. Hence, the Russell amendment extends to these four categories of religious entities when they are working for or attempt to work for the government, the same religious liberty rights they have had for over 50 years when operating in the private sector. This approach is neither new nor novel. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 extends many of the same rights granted under the 1964 act to people with disabilities. Section 103(d) of that act allows the four categories of religious entities to give ``preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion'' and to require that ``all applicants and employees conform to the religious tenets of such organization.'' Again, the Russell amendment extends to these four categories of religious entities the same religious liberty rights they have had for over 25 years when operating in the private sector to when they are doing business in the government. The opponents of the Russell amendment say it provides for discrimination against the LGBT community. A simple review of the amendment and the underlying statutes demonstrates an absence of any reference to LGBT persons. Indeed, the Russell amendment is narrowly drawn to apply only to the four categories of religious entities in their employment of individuals to carry out their work. Any service or product produced by such an entity in a government contract would have to be provided to whomever the government requires, and that, obviously and appropriately, will include those in the LGBT community. Mr. Speaker, if the Russell amendment is discriminatory, then so is the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. If allowing a religious entity to employ persons who share its beliefs is discriminatory, then so are all these other Congresses. It is inaccurate to portray the Russell amendment as anything other than a narrowly drawn effort to protect religious freedom.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With great respect to the gentlewoman, she, I am sure, was not here yesterday and was not listening when I said this: that provision she is referring to, which gives the next President the opportunity to make changes in the overseas contingency operation account, is exactly what this House did in 2008, the last time we were about to change administrations. Then-Senator Obama voted for it. Then-Senator Kerry voted for it. Then-Senator Biden voted for it. This is not new. This is standard when you are changing administrations. Nothing more. Nothing less. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was listening to my friend from Massachusetts talk about what he considers to be discriminatory. Well, I am going to go through the list again. Do we consider the First Amendment to the Constitution to be discriminatory? Do we consider the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that passed this House by a voice vote to be discriminatory? Do we consider title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to be discriminatory? Do we consider the Americans with Disabilities Act to be discriminatory? Because that and only those things are what are contained in this provision. So we can call things discriminatory, but when you look at the actual text of it and understand what they actually are, they are protecting basic rights. And that is what we should be all about. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With regard to the amendment in question, it was considered late at night because of the fair and open process we have in the committee. And it took us that long--from 10 in the morning until that time of the night--to get to it. Everybody knew it was coming because it was noticed and everybody had a copy of it well in advance. So it wasn't a surprise to anybody. Everybody knew it was coming. Now, the particular provision itself does not contain anything close to a word like discrimination. But just so we can make the record straight, I am going to read it: Any branch or agency of the Federal Government shall, with respect to any religious corporation, religious association, religious educational institution, or religious society that is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal Government contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative agreement, provide protections and exemptions consistent with section 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It doesn't provide discrimination. It provides protection for rights, and, unfortunately, people want to try to twist it around to be something it simply is not.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wasn't able to respond to that last comment from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I want to make sure that he knows--and everybody in the House knows--that during the consideration of the rule we passed yesterday, an amendment was offered in the Rules Committee to strip out this executing amendment. That was offered in the Rules Committee and rejected by the Rules Committee in an open vote. Our meetings are on C- SPAN. They are not behind closed doors. Everybody can watch what we do. Then yesterday we came on the floor, and that rule was offered on this floor and there was a full debate. I know; I was here for it. I managed that rule as well. After that full debate, this House voted, and voted by a clear majority to adopt the rule. So we went through a democratic process. We went through an open and clear process, both to consider that particular issue and consider the rule itself, and the House acted its will. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Maryland. He wasn't on the floor when I spoke earlier. Perhaps he didn't hear that, between the Committee on Armed Services and on this floor, 429 amendments have been made in order--181 for this floor alone. That is an open process, and it is a far more open process than what this House saw when other people were in charge. This is the process that the American people have a right to expect, and they are getting exactly what they were told they were going to get. Mr. Speaker, the provision that he is referring to, a provision regarding including women in the draft, was, in fact, offered in the middle of the night without there being any hearings in the Committee on Armed Services, without there being any notice to the American people. There wasn't an adequate hearing; there wasn't an adequate opportunity for everybody to be heard. So the decision was made that the better way to do it, if we are going to consider it--and it probably is something we need to consider at some time--is to do it through a regular committee process, where we notice it to the American people, where we have hearings, and when people can be heard. Then we can have a full and honest debate with the American people having had a chance to weigh in. I disagree with the gentleman from Maryland. I think this is exactly the appropriate process. If we are going to take up something of that magnitude, we ought to do it right and not do it because of an amendment that was offered as sort of a last-minute thing in the middle of the night when we are considering this bill. I have great respect for the gentleman from Maryland. He was not there when it was offered. He was not there during the Committee on Rules' consideration last night, so he is probably not fully aware of the number of amendments that we have both in the committee and on the floor today--429 amendments. This is an open process. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's comment. This is something that we had some significant discussion about last night in the Committee on Rules. Let's make sure that the facts are straight. There is not one single thing in this bill that discriminates against anybody. In fact, in the provision he is talking about, there is not one single mention of LGBT. What is in that provision is a clear application by this law of protections of religious liberties that people have enjoyed in this country since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act--one of the hallmarks of the legislative achievements of this body and an act, I believe, everybody in this body supports today. It says that the religious protections in that law that we are all so proud of should be enjoyed by people who have Federal contracts. Private parties that contract with the government should enjoy religious freedom. That is not discrimination. That is protecting the rights of the American people. Sometimes we get confused around here about that, and we are getting confused in the military bill about that, and that is very troublesome. Let's talk about the First Amendment. The First Amendment says that the government can't do anything to restrict the expression of religion, the practice of religion, the belief of religion by anybody in this country. It is called the Free Exercise Clause. We have forgotten the Free Exercise Clause in this body and in this country. We need to go back to it. About 20 years ago, this body passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was so popular that it passed by a voice vote. It had just a handful of people who voted against it in the Senate. It specifically requires that we do exactly what is in this bill. We are being consistent with that law by putting this provision in there. What do we do with this particular provision? We say that the provisions of title VII in the 1964 act and the provisions that regard this in the Americans with Disabilities Act apply to private contractors with the Federal Government. That is not discrimination. By anybody's definition, that is not discrimination. To try to turn it into that is doing something on a bill that is talking about the defense of this country, which is just not appropriate. It is absolutely appropriate that the Committee on Rules rejected that amendment. If the people on the other side of the aisle or on our side of the aisle want to have this debate, there are other forums and other times to do it. When we are talking about the defense of this country, it is not the right time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 735 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 735 provides for continued consideration of H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The resolution provides for a structured rule and makes in order 120 amendments. These amendments are on top of the 61 amendments that were made in order by yesterday's rule. That is a combined 181 amendments on one bill. As I mentioned during yesterday's debate, the NDAA process has always been bipartisan. In fact, Congress has successfully passed the NDAA for each of the last 54 years. That is a really impressive accomplishment. I hope this year is no different. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that the NDAA passed out of the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 60-2. That vote total is very, very impressive and demonstrates the bipartisan nature in which our committee, the Armed Services Committee, operates. Another thing I really appreciate about the NDAA process is how open it is and how so many different Members are able to have input into the final product. The first round of amendment debate yesterday was an example of a healthy debate on a wide range of amendments. You look around the country, and so many of our communities are home to important military assets and programs. Some communities are home to military bases where we are training our future fighters. Other communities contribute to our military success with industry suppliers; and every single community across the country is home to servicemembers, whether Active Duty, Guard, or Reserve. Each of these communities faces unique challenges and offer different perspectives. That is why I believe it is so important that we have such an open process to allow a wide range of views to be discussed and debated. During the Armed Services Committee process, we considered 248 amendments. When you add up the amendments considered at the committee level to the amendments we will consider on the floor, it brings us to a huge total of 429 amendments on one bill. These amendments cover a range of important issues from National Guard to cybersecurity, to sexual assault, to religious freedom, to military health care. Looking at specific security threats we face, these amendments address issues relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Europe, Russia, and many more places. I know my colleague from Massachusetts is particularly interested in the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, debate, as I am. Although the Foreign Affairs Committee, not the Armed Services Committee, has jurisdiction over AUMFs, I was pleased that we were able to obtain the committee's approval for Ms. Lee's amendment to be made in order so the House can debate this issue on the floor. I know that doesn't go as far as my colleague from Massachusetts would want it to go, and I hope that there is a time when this body, after hearings in appropriate committees of jurisdiction, can have a full and informed debate on a new AUMF, but we cannot do that under these circumstances today and give the American people the full and fair hearing that they deserve. A few of my colleagues have also expressed concerns about the way this NDAA is funded. This rule makes in order an amendment by Mr. Ellison that would cut money out of the overseas contingency operations account. While I think these concerns are misguided, this rule allows that debate to take place. The rule makes in order an amendment by our Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Polis, which would put in place a 1 percent across-the- board reduction in total spending under the NDAA. Again, I think this would be a grave error, but this rule provides for that important debate. We have heard bipartisan concerns about visa programs for certain at- risk populations in Afghanistan, and this amendment makes in order a bipartisan amendment by Mr. Blumenauer to reform the Special Immigrant Visa program. The rule allows for debate on another bipartisan amendment that would require the Department of Defense to report on China's activities in the South China Sea in their annual report on Chinese military power. I think this is an issue that is particularly important. I hope this gets my point across that we have taken a comprehensive look at national security issues and allowed a wide range of Members, both Republicans and Democrats, to bring their amendments forward. We hear a lot about the need for an open process. Again, I am very pleased that, between the Armed Services Committee and the House floor, 429 amendments will be considered. Given the large number of amendments, I want to thank our Rules Committee staff who put in very late hours to help sort through the amendments. I know it wasn't easy work, but we certainly appreciate all that they do and the extra hours they put in to help facilitate this debate. Yesterday, I outlined why the National Defense Authorization Act is so critically important. I talked about the critical investment the bill makes to boost our military readiness. I discussed how the bill increases accountability and efficiency at the Pentagon, and I highlighted some of the critical reforms included in the bill. I won't rehash these points, but I do want to reemphasize one key point: every day we send our servicemembers into dangerous situations. When we do so, we don't send them into battle as Democrats or Republicans. We send them into battle as Americans. So as we continue working through this bill, I want to again plead with my colleagues to avoid making this about politics. Instead, let's make this about America and about ensuring our servicemembers have sound policy and the resources they need in order to keep our country safe. We shouldn't--and, quite frankly, we can't--let politics get in the way of passing this critical national security bill. Our military men and women deserve nothing less. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 735 and the underlying bill. 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. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand all 1,271 pages of the underlying bill, and it is filled with the things that we need to do to defend the American people. As interesting as the debate we have just had has been, think of how much of it had nothing to do with defending the American people, which is what we are supposed to be here about, which is the single most important thing that we do. My colleague talked about guts. The guts I care about are the guts of the fighting men and women of the United States. We have a solemn obligation to them to pass this bill, to make sure that we are doing everything to supply them, to train them, to make sure that they are ready, to make sure we have reformed the Pentagon so that the Pentagon is doing its job by them, so that we have a policy that will make sure that we are defending the American people. That is what this law is all about. The rule itself makes in order, between yesterday and today, 181 amendments. That is on top of over 200 amendments that were considered as part of this bill. This has been a completely open and transparent process and will continue to be as we consider it over the next several hours. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 735 and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the only speaker from my side.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from Massachusetts raises some very important points. It would be appropriate for our Foreign Affairs Committee to take up those points and consider them after we have had a lot of hearings, including an opportunity for a notice to the American people so the American people can be heard. Coming up with this sort of an idea that it is just going to come through the Rules Committee without any hearing, without any real expertise in the Rules Committee to consider it, and then putting it on the floor for limited debate is not the way to do it. Now, I must admit I have some reservations about establishing a hard stop of April 30 of next year. Saying that we are going to allow the next President to come forward with a new OCO proposal before April 30 of next year, which we did 8 years ago, is not the same thing. What my colleague is proposing is a hard stop. That is exactly what the President did in Iraq: a hard stop. We pulled out, and look what happened: absolute chaos, a nation that has gone from being a nation into being a nation in total dissolution. We came close to doing the same thing in Afghanistan. Thankfully, the President has pulled back from that. Because when we telegraph to our enemies, ``Hey, we are out of here after a certain date,'' they know when we are leaving, they know when we are stopping, and they know exactly how to time their activities against us. I don't think we should give that opportunity to our enemies. Now, I completely agree with my colleague from Massachusetts that we need a new AUMF. I have said that on multiple occasions. I have signed letters to that effect. And I do believe that we have a situation in Syria that is not authorized, as it should be under the law. Why are we in this situation? Because we have yet to receive a strategy from the Obama administration on how to prosecute that war. We had the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard) before the committee last night. She has fought over there. She knows this better than just about anybody in this room. She laid out clear deficiencies in the administration's so-called plan, which they sent over to the Armed Services Committee 45 days later, and only after we had to browbeat the Secretary of Defense to meeting its statutory responsibility. And she laid out clearly what we need to do in terms of a strategy. We have yet to get that from the Commander in Chief of our own Armed Forces. If we would get that, if we would get a clear strategy for victory, not a clear strategy for some pie in the sky, we are going to arm some Free Syrian Army that is not working, then I think we could have something to work on to bring to this floor. The problem is we are having to put ourselves in the place of the Commander in Chief, which is not what the Constitution calls for, nor will it work. We are going to continue to struggle with this because of the failure of this administration, not because of the failure of this House. I agree with the gentleman: I want to see a new AUMF. I want to see it go through hearings. I want to see it debated on this floor so I can vote for it or against it, and everybody can vote for it or against it. But the proposal he makes is not the right way to do that, so I hope that we continue to reject it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

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 appreciate the gentleman from Vermont. He and I and a group of Members of this body met recently with members of the German Bundestag and the Russian Duma to talk about these very issues, and it was a most enlightening trip for all of us. By the way, all of us went as American citizens, as Members of the United States Congress, not as Democrats or Republicans. One of the most troubling things that we learned from that trip is that the Russians continue to invest at a significantly higher level than we are in terms of their increases every year and their military activities. That is why they have been so successful in Ukraine, why they have been so successful recently in Syria. So this bill begins to turn back around so that we are investing properly. If I thought that we were throwing money at the problem, if my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the Armed Services Committee thought we were just throwing money at the problem, this bill would not have received a 60-2 vote in committee, I can tell you that. The inefficiencies the gentleman talked about we are very concerned about. That is why there is so much reform in this bill. There are five different components that deal with reform. We can't expect American taxpayers to pay for any part of the government that is inefficient, including our military. He brought up the Authorization for Use of Military Force. We had a big debate about this in committee, and I asked my staff: Why can't we consider an Authorization for Use of Military Force in our committee? I think we should. I was told and we found out by reading the War Powers Act, a law passed by Congress in 1973, that, under that law, jurisdiction for the Authorization for Use of Military Force is vested in the Foreign Affairs Committee, not in the Armed Services Committee, so we could not consider that when it came before the committee. And then, finally, as to his comments about NATO, I share a lot of his concerns. I think many of us do. There is nothing wrong and everything right with expecting our NATO allies to meet their 2 percent obligation. Most of them are not doing that. I do believe the administration is working with them to get them to that point, but I don't think we should ever miss an opportunity to keep the heat on them to do that. Ultimately, the defense that we provide over in Europe through NATO is the defense of those countries. So I think it is appropriate that the gentleman brought up that point. I hope the administration will continue to do that, and I hope that we will continue to back any effort that is taken by this administration or the next to do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Massachusetts and all the points that he has made. Indeed, there were a number of bipartisan amendments that were added to the bill during that very long day and night that we spent considering it, which just points out the bipartisan nature of what we are doing here. On the committee, we try to work together to find the right way forward for the defense of America. When colleagues on either side of the aisle offer something that is common sense and we think will work, we work together to make sure it gets in the bill, and that is what he just alluded to. He also alluded to an amendment that he hopes will be added as a result of the Committee on Rules meeting this afternoon. We are going to be considering an awful lot of amendments this afternoon. There are over 60 amendments that we have made in order in this rule, bipartisan amendments, so this is a very strong effort on our part to make sure that this is a bipartisan bill; and as a bipartisan bill, it deserves bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague who just spoke that, if we are going to do this, we should have a full debate on it. But we should also let the American people be heard. Because of the way this happened in committee, there was no public hearing beforehand. There was no notice to the American people that this was going to be considered. So the most important people we need to hear from on this haven't been heard from, and they need to be heard from. The way to do that is for us to announce that we are considering this; have full public hearings in committee; and then, after having full public hearings, the committee makes a decision and brings something to this floor for us to debate. But for us to bring up an issue of that magnitude without having gone through the process of letting the American people be truly heard here, that is not appropriate. So while I understand exactly what my colleague just said--I was there for the committee meeting. I know that there was a vote on it. It was a vote after we had no debate in committee, no hearings, no opportunity for the American people to be heard--if we are going to take an issue like this and bring it to the floor of this House, we need to do all of that or we wouldn't be doing our job. So I respectfully disagree with her. I think the self-executing amendment by Chairman Sessions is appropriate, and I would urge my colleagues to support that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.