Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was listening to the gentleman from Colorado speak. We heard about immigration, minimum wage, LGBT, renewable energy, highways, the Ex-Im Bank, and a little bit about fish. This is a bill about fish. It is not about all of that stuff. We have heard from our friends on the other side of the aisle that we in the majority are using too many combined rules, where you have more than one bill in the rule, which they say confuses the debate and distracts from the individual merits of each bill and the process by which it will be considered. I have just got to tell you that it seems to me we had a lot of confusion and distraction with the interjection into this debate of a bunch of issues that have nothing to do with fishing. Today, we have one rule covering one bill; yet the gentleman just spent the majority of his time discussing issues not covered in the rule before us. Let me tell you that the people in my area are suffering. Charter boat people have lost their boats. Dads who want to take their children fishing can't take their children fishing. It is destroying a way of life for people. I am not saying those other issues aren't important, that they are not serious, but they are not covered by this rule, and they are not in this bill. We need to debate that. The gentleman said something about the 2007 act, that it was successful. Let me tell you what it has been successful in doing. It has taken a summer red snapper season and reduced it to 10 days. That is what it has been successful in doing. It has been successful in almost decimating our charter boat fleets and in putting a lot of people out of work. I hear a lot from the other side about needing to put people to work. The people on these charter boats work. They lost their jobs because of this. It was successful all right. It was successful in destroying something that worked for people for generations. I have great respect for my fellow colleague from Colorado who is on the Rules Committee. I know he doesn't get to fish much in the Gulf of Mexico, but I extend an invitation to him. I will take him out there and let him catch some red snapper. I believe, Mr. Speaker, once he does that, he will be as enthusiastic for this bill as I am. 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 comments. It is very important that we try to find ways to try to work together when the form of this bill that we worked on in the committee last year, which is almost identical to the one that we adopted this year, was before the Natural Resources Committee. In Mr. DeFazio's opening statement, he said: Thank you, Chairman, and I appreciate the changes that were negotiated on a number of provisions in the bill. Then he said: This has been traditionally a very bipartisan exercise, and this is, in good part, bipartisan. Mr. Pallone, same time, his opening statement in the committee last year on a virtually identical bill was: I do want to say that I do appreciate the fact that you reach out to us on the Democratic side of the aisle; and many of the provisions, as you mentioned, that are in the bill did come from input from the Democratic side. The gentleman referenced the substitute: The substitute has been made in order and has given more time than anything else for us to debate. We have really leaned over backwards, particularly when you consider that the majority of amendments that we have made in order in this rule are amendments offered by the Democrats. Now, I appreciate that the gentleman has a substitute--and we are going to give him an opportunity to talk about it--but if you look at his substitute, we might as well call his substitute ``The Environmental Litigation and Fisheries Disaster Creation Act of 2015'' because that is what it is going to do. This amendment would allow the Secretary of Commerce to accept outside funds from NGOs to support cooperative research projects. This gives the litigation community of the world an avenue to influence NOAA decision making. This amendment requires the Secretary of Commerce to ignore current procedure and forces the Secretary to retroactively declare a fishery disaster in California from a January 2004 emergency proclamation on California drought. Mr. Huffman's amendment seems to single out and blame the Central Valley Project for a fishery disaster. As we all know, there are many factors for fish declines, mainly including ocean conditions. This amendment seeks to blame farmers for a fishery disaster. Above all, this amendment erases the flexibilities, transparency, and science improvements made in the underlying bill, but we give him the opportunity to make his case before this House to show our willingness to work with them. I was greatly surprised when I read the Statement of Administration Policy that we received from the administration when we were marking this bill up in Rules Committee yesterday, and I was most surprised at what they had to say about the snapper language. Now, that language came from me. I asked the committee to put it in the bill, and I am greatly appreciative of the fact that they did. Remember what I said about what the science has done to our fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. Here is what the administration says: H.R. 1335 would also severely undermine the authority of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Management Council by extending State jurisdiction over the recreational red snapper fishery to 9 miles in the Gulf of Mexico. We intend to give the States more authority by going out. Now, yes, that would give us some flexibility for the fishing out there, but a lot of the reefs that these red snappers grow on are further out than 9 miles, so it doesn't solve the whole problem. The administration goes on to say: This proposed extension of jurisdiction would create an untenable situation where recreational and commercial fishermen fishing side by side would be subject to different regulatory regimes. How do they know in advance what the States are going to do? Why do they presume that that is going to be the case? They do so because they have such an aversion to the States having any control, any input, in the way that this fishery is governed. They go on to say: Absent an agreement among the States as to how to allocate recreationally caught red snapper, the bill would encourage interstate conflict and jeopardize the sustainability of this gulfwide resource. No one has a greater stake in making sure we keep this fish stock healthy than those of us that live on the Gulf Coast do. Whether we are in commercial fishing, whether we are in charter boat fishing, whether we are in recreational fishing, if we overfish this stock, it is gone; I won't get to fish it with my grandson. Future commercial fishermen won't get to make money off of this and provide jobs. Charter boat people won't be able to come down to the beach and enjoy themselves. No one wants that to happen. The administration presumes that we are going to be so self-defeating that we would allow that to happen. I am greatly disappointed that, after all the work we did to solve this problem that was created by the government scientists, that still the administration is attacking us, still they are trying to keep us from solving this problem. I appreciate what the gentleman had to say. I think we should try to work together on every bill we try to pass in this House; but, at some point, we have got to stand up for people who fish in this country. We have a right to fish in the waters of the United States, and the waters of the United States don't belong to the government scientists; they belong to the people of America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I was listening very carefully to the gentleman from Colorado, and I accept his invitation to go trout fishing. I would love to do that. Fishing of all kind is great for everybody to do, and I appreciate his invitation. The reason we have the problem we have today is not because the Federal Government knows how many fish are out there. It doesn't. Remember what I said earlier--this is a reef fish, and they don't sample for reef fish on reefs. So, if you don't sample for reef fish on reefs, you are not going to find the fish. Now, we know there are so many fish out there because we haven't been allowed to fish them and that snapper are not only eating other species but they are eating other snapper. What our scientists have done is they have actually gone out there with submersible vehicles with high-def cameras, and they count the fish on the reef and sample them that way. They have a real number. They do a real sampling so they get accurate data, and these government scientists don't. My friend said that we should go back to the drawing board. We have waited too long already. We should have done this last year so that we could have had a real snapper season this year. If we wait again, we won't have a snapper season next year, and that is not acceptable. We have enough fish out there--and the science from our region has proven it--to have a real snapper season. It is not just about snapper. We have these problems in other areas of the fishery that need to be taken care of and taken care of in a responsible way. No one is more environmentally conscious than someone who hunts and fishes, because that is where we get our enjoyment, and we want it to be there for us and for our children and, now that I have a grandson, for my grandchildren. I have appreciated this debate today. I always welcome the opportunity to draw attention to some of the real issues which are affecting my constituents back on the Gulf Coast. To some people up here, this issue doesn't mean much. To some people, they only listen to the political talking points put out by lobbyists or by political parties or by environmental groups. But to the small restaurant employees in Gulf Shores or to the charter boat captain in Orange Beach or to the gas station in Foley or to the condo owners on Dauphin Island or to the thousands of families who spend time fishing on the Gulf Coast and all around our country, this bill is critically important. This bill is about getting the Federal Government off our backs so that we can fish. Let's not fall back into another political debate. Let's come together on behalf of our Nation's coastal communities. Let's get some real relief for our fishermen. I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and to support this commonsense bill and to support the people of America and their freedom to fish in our waters. 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. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 274 provides a structured rule for consideration of the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. The rule makes in order eight amendments, five of which are from Democratic sponsors. One of the amendments is a Democrat substitute, which will be debated for twice as long as the other amendments. As someone who has lived his whole life on the Gulf Coast, I can tell you just how important this bill is. For many people who live on our Nation's coast, this bill is about a way of life. This bill is for our Nation's commercial fishermen, who depend on a reliable fishing stock in order to make a living. This bill is also for our Nation's charter boat fleets, which are an important source of tourism. That means jobs, Mr. Speaker, and all too often people in this town and government scientists seem not to care about that. Just as importantly, this bill is for our recreational fishermen and everyday anglers who just enjoy spending time on the waters. For my family, this is a lifelong tradition. I remember fishing with my dad on the Gulf of Mexico. I treasured opportunities to fish with my four children, and as a new grandfather, I look forward to fishing with my grandson. This is a good bill, and as a former member of the committee of jurisdiction, the Natural Resources Committee, I can tell you that a great amount of time and effort have gone into this bill. This process started over 2 years ago, and there was a lot of work to bring our parties together to get a bill that everyone can agree on. Unfortunately, as happens far too often here in Washington, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to make this into a partisan fight. President Obama has said he will veto this bill. All this despite real efforts to work together, across the aisle, to get a bill that works for everyone. Now I want to briefly talk about the idea of science that the President and my colleagues on the other side claim the bill undermines. All too often here in D.C., what passes for science is just political ideology dressed up with some technical language with no real basis in observable data. I don't know if the gentleman from Colorado has ever been fishing for red snapper in the Gulf Coast--if he hasn't, then I invite him to do so--but I can tell you that there are more red snapper there than there has ever been before. Despite that good news, NOAA and the Federal Government is consistently undercounting the number of fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Here is the craziest part of all: NOAA is not sampling for red snapper on reefs, despite the fact that the red snapper is a reef fish. That is simply absurd. If you look for red snapper somewhere other than the reefs, you are not going to find them because they live on reefs. Now, NOAA is also overestimating the number of red snapper caught each year. For example, last year the Federal Government estimated that 1,041,000 pounds of red snapper were caught off the coast of Alabama, where I am from. The Alabama red snapper reporting system, which is run by the State, only estimated a catch of 418,000 pounds. That is a remarkable disparity. So what has happened is a very dangerous combination of NOAA underestimating how many fish are actually out there and overestimating the number of fish caught each year. This has resulted in a dramatically shortened season for our red snapper fisherman. Last year's red snapper season was only 9 days. This year it has been increased to 10 days. That is simply unacceptable. I support science-based management, and the committee supports science-based management, but I don't support and the committee doesn't support flawed science-based management. And this House shouldn't either. So that is why I get so frustrated when I hear my colleagues say that this bill undermines good science. Come tell that to my fishermen on the Gulf Coast. Come tell that to the marine scientists on the Gulf Coast who have done extensive scientific research on this. This bill is important because it includes real reforms that are designed to get some better science for all of our fisheries, not only as it relates to red snapper, but as it relates to the fisheries all around the United States of America. Why don't we encourage stronger partnerships with local colleges and universities that have done great work in the past? Mr. Speaker, I do want to touch on that red snapper issue a little more because it is so important to the people I represent, and it is very important to debate on this bill. This bill includes three important reforms that local scientists, stakeholders, and I believe will get us a real red snapper season. Number one, it repeals inflexible quotas that have been in place up to this point. Number two, it creates jurisdictional parity by expanding State waters out to 9 nautical miles gulfwide. Number three, it shifts the stock assessment and data collection responsibilities from the Federal Government and gives those responsibilities to the Gulf States so we can get some real science, not flawed science. Far too often people in Washington think we know best; people in Washington think we have all the answers. This is an issue where that simply is not the case. This bill empowers our Nation's fishing communities and gives them the flexibility they need. So regardless of whether or not you go fishing, this issue should matter to all Americans because this issue is about freedom and limiting the role of the Federal Government in areas where it just doesn't belong. This is an extremely fair rule. I urge its support, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 1815, the Chief of Engineers issued orders to Lieutenant Hipolite Dumas, which began the long and proud history of engineering service to the Gulf Coast and Mobile. Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is celebrating 200 years of exemplary service to the Southeast region, the U.S. military and the Nation. For its first 70 years in Mobile and along the Gulf Coast, these engineers surveyed and fortified the southern coast from St. Marks River in Florida to Lake Pontchartrain to the west. Forts were the key elements of the coastal defense system, but complementary structures such as lighthouses and towers were also constructed. In addition to the coastal fortifications, Gulf Coast engineers also began surveys to look at connecting the inland waterways with the Tennessee-Coosa River canal study. Following the Civil War, in 1870, an engineer office was opened in Mobile, Alabama. Eighteen years later the Mobile District was officially established in a formal reorganization of operations at the national level. The nation turned toward rebuilding the economy after the Civil War and developing the nation's transportation system became a positive, tangible means of measuring progress. Major navigation surveys were conducted on Southeastern rivers such as the Coosa River, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee Flint, the Black Warrior, Tennessee- Tombigbee, and the Alabama River between 1870 and 1879. When Mobile District was established in 1888, the District's boundaries were from the Escambia River westward to the East Pearl River. Montgomery District had responsibilities from the Escambia River eastward to St. Marks River in Florida. In 1933 the two districts merged into one, the Mobile District. The District also was also given responsibilities for all military construction for the Army and Army Air Corps in Mississippi, Tennessee and Alabama. The 1930's were a busy time for the Motile District. Modernization of the Black Warrior River system began, taking the number of locks required to transit the waterway from 17 to 5. Construction of Brookley Field, the Southeast Army Air Depot and the Mobile Air Service Command during World War II began. The Flood Control Act of 1936 set into motion a national flood protection plan and gave the Corps jurisdiction over federal flood control protection investigation and river improvements. As busy as the 1930's were, World War II resulted in the largest wartime mobilization effort ever for the United States. The magnitude of Mobile District's work can be judged by expenditure for construction. Between December 1941 and December 1943, nearly $1 billion was expended in the District on facilities that included 32 Army airfields, an ordnance training center, two arsenals, three Army ground force depots, five harbor defense installations, nine Civil Aviation Administration airfields, two Army Air Force supply depots, one Army Air Force cantonment, six Ordnance manufacturing plants, nine Army ground force cantonments and six special installations. In the 1950's construction of Buford Dam in Georgia was initiated, Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam was completed, Walter F. George Lock and Dam construction began and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency was established at Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama in 1956. In 1959 NASA was established at Redstone Arsenal for the Saturn Project. The construction of facilities for the Saturn project, a rocket program that was the work of the von Braun team at Redstone, was one of Mobile District's biggest projects. The District was responsible for the testing facilities at Redstone Arsenal associated with the Saturn booster, and eventually one of the major construction projects of the post Korean War period, the Mississippi Test Facility. In the 1960's, the District continued the legacy of improving and developing the Nation's inland waterway transportation system. West Point Dam was authorized, Carters Dam on the Coosawattee River and Millers Ferry Lock and Dam on the Alabama River began. Construction of the Claiborne Lock and Dam and Robert F. Henry Lock and Dam also began in the 60's. In the 1970's Mobile again took on new responsibilities. Construction responsibility for Cape Canaveral District was shifted to Mobile. Military construction in Florida, the Panama Canal activities and Central/South America programs were also shifted to Mobile. The 1970's also saw construction begin on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, at the time the largest Civil Works project in Corps history. The 70's ended with Hurricane Fredric hitting Mobile on September 12, 1979. Under Public Law 84-99 the Corps was authorized to provide emergency assistance during disasters. The States of Alabama, Florida and Mississippi were all declared Federal disaster areas. Mobile District has been a national leader in emergency response actions for the Corps. Through the District's innovation the Corps developed a national-level Detachable Tactical Operations System to provide immediate support to disaster stricken areas. This was never more evident than after 9/11 when the District supported the New York City police and fire departments with these units. The 80's saw innovation within the Corps, with Mobile District once again leading the way. Life Cycle/Project Management was first tested and then established in Mobile District. It has now become the standard for Corps management. This decade also saw the opening of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway to navigation, creating the transportation artery from the Gulf Coast to the Nation's mid-section first envisioned in the mid 1800's. Base Realignment and Closure also began in the 80's. Mobile District has been involved in all the BRAC National Environmental Policy Act requirements for BRAC from 1988 until the present. The closing decade of the 1900's once again revealed Mobile's innovation. In 1994 the Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne Lidar Survey, or SHOALS, was first tested. This innovative 3-D technology was adapted for underwater mapping. When later combined with the U.S. Navy's CHARTS system, the team became a world leader in underwater mapping. The 1990s also saw the completion of the J-6 Large Rocket Test Facility, the completion of the John J. Sparkman Center located at the U.S. Army Arsenal at Redstone, Alabama. The Sparkman Center and follow on phases, encompasses more than 1 million square feet and is one of the most modern military facilities in the world. As the Nation entered the new century Mobile District continued its record of excellence. The Von Braun Center at Redstone Arsenal was completed in 2014 and is home to the Space and Missile Defense Command and the Missile Defense Agency. The District responded to and assisted in recovery operations when four hurricanes struck the State of Florida in 2004. In 2005, Mobile District began a comprehensive analysis and design for the Mississippi coastal counties to make them more resilient and less susceptible to risk from hurricane and storm damage following the devastating landfall of Hurricane Katrina along the Mississippi coast. From this analysis came the Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program, an innovative approach to achieving the goal of a more resilient coast. Since 2000, Mobile has also completed four Headquarters complexes for major key commands, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Army Material Command and the U.S. Special Operations Command. They also were the design and construction agent for the new cantonment area and training ranges for the 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) which relocated from Fort Bragg, North Carolina to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. They are also responsible for the construction of various facilities at Eglin Air Force Base to support the Joint Strike Fighter program. Mobile District continues to serve a variety of programs and missions in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee and Central and South America. While I know my colleagues from these States are as appreciative as I am for their work, I am especially proud to have the District Headquarters in my District and in Mobile. It is with pride that I say, Happy Birthday to Mobile District on your two hundred years of exemplary, innovative and dedicated service. On behalf of a grateful Nation, thank you to all the civilian and military members of the Mobile District for all you have done.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).

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

Mr. BYRNE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

Mr. BYRNE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my friend.

Mr. BYRNE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In listening to the remarks that we have just heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts, I was struck by the fact that so much of it had to do with things other than national defense. I said in the very beginning that this is the authorization of the defense of America. Those are important issues--health care, education, transportation--and we need to debate those, but not in this bill. That is why those sorts of amendments were not made in order. Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate the defense of the United States of America. I did hear the gentleman criticize the President's policy in Afghanistan, and I do think that we should consider at some point in time an appropriate AUMF for the conflict in Iraq. This House has been asking the leadership for briefings and other information about the proposed AUMF that we got from the administration, and we haven't received them yet, so we can't have the sort of deliberative-type review of his AUMF until we receive that information. I would say, as important as those issues are, they are not in order under this bill. This is a bill that we have historically adopted in a bipartisan fashion. Let's stay focused on the defense of the United States of America in this bipartisan bill and not wander off onto other things that we are either not prepared for or that are not in order under this bill. At this point in time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), my colleague.

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 260 provides a structured rule for consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. It is my privilege to present this rule to the House as a member of the Rules Committee. It is also my privilege to do so as a member of the committee of jurisdiction over this bill, the House Armed Services Committee. The Rules Committee received a record number of amendments to the bill; heard nearly 6 hours of testimony from our colleagues; and, in this rule, have made in order 135 amendments for consideration on the House floor. As is traditional, the rule gives the chair of the Armed Services Committee authority to offer such amendments en bloc to facilitate consideration of such a large number of amendments. This is a good rule that helps pave the way for the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. This law, this bill, governs the defense of the United States of America, provides for the servicemen and -women that defend this country. It is the single most important function of this House. We are going to hear spirited debate today, but we need to make sure, as we hear this debate, that we focus on what we are here about, and that is to defend the people of the United States. While there are other things that may be brought up that are important and good, they are not about the defense of the United States and would not be in order for this bill. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have followed this bill from the start. Counting the Rules Committee hours and the hours in committee, I have personally spent over 25 hours in debate on this bill. This has been an incredibly open process: 335 amendments were filed at the Armed Services Committee level; 211 amendments were adopted by the House Armed Services Committee in markup, including 96 Democrat amendments; 135 amendments were made in order by the rule--69 of those are Democrat or bipartisan amendments. That is over 450 amendments that have been considered since we started this process. The National Defense Authorization Act has a history of bipartisanship, which is only appropriate on the single most important thing that we do, defending the people of the United States. It passed out of the Committee on Armed Services on a vote of 60-2. It has been completed every year since 1962 on a bipartisan basis. That is 53 straight years, and we need to make it 54. This bill is vitally important to our country. For the first time in a long time, Americans are ranking national security as their number one concern, even ahead of the economy. Former CIA leader Mike Morell said he has never seen more threats to our country at any other time in his 33 years in the business. Most alarmingly, he says that we are at risk of another attack here in the United States. Our military men and women need this bill to do their job and help keep us safe. The administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy and indicated in there that the President's advisers would recommend a veto of this bill. I sincerely hope the President would not do so, given the bipartisan effort to pass a bill so critical to the security of our Nation. President Obama requested authorization for $612 billion in military spending, and this bill matches that request dollar for dollar. Now, some of my colleagues quibble with that, and they quibble with that because, as you can see in this light blue area at the very top, in the President's recommendation, there is a certain amount of money that he wants to be in the categorization of overseas contingency operations, OCO. The bill does the same thing except it increases OCO by a small amount--that you can see here--and increases the base by a larger amount. In essence, what we have done here is gotten to the same place as the President by making a very small alteration to the OCO. Some of my colleagues are trying to use our military men and women as pawns in an effort to boost nondefense discretionary spending. That is plainly wrong and reprehensible. Those other issues are important to our country, and it is important that we debate them, but we should never hold up this piece of legislation that is historically bipartisan to make a point on something that has nothing to do with the defense of the United States of America. This bill is for the men and women who are keeping our Nation safe. They have elected to serve our Nation. The least we can do is give them the resources and the policy they need to do their job. Now, some of my colleagues want to use them as political bargaining chips. That is hard for me to believe that anyone would consider doing that in this House. This bill is complex. It deals with a number of very complicated issues. There are a couple that I know we are going to talk about today that I briefly want to touch on now. The first one is this whole issue of the overseas contingency operations account and how it affects this whole issue of sequestration. Long before I got here, there was this deal within Congress that was proposed by the President that, in essence, resulted in this artificial sequestration of funds that would otherwise be appropriately sent to the military, and we are operating under the artificial constraints of that sequestration law today. I don't know what the rationale was back then because I wasn't here, but that rationale, whatever it was, doesn't make sense today when the number one concern of the American people is defending the United States of America, when experts on this issue are telling us, over and over again, the American interests abroad--and, yes, here at home--are threatened. Why should we feel that we should be limited to that at a time when we need to be stepping forth and defending the American people? Now, there may be a time and a place to revisit the sequestration law, but that time and that place is not on this law. This law is for us to do what we must do to defend the United States of America, and this bill does that. Another issue that we will be hearing a lot today is a proposed amendment by my colleague from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), and that deals with the issue of immigration. Now, you may ask: Why are we talking about immigration in regard to a bill on national defense? That is a good question. We should not be. During the Armed Services Committee's consideration of this bill--and it went for 18 hours late in the process--one of our members offered an amendment to insert the immigration issue into this bill. It was unfortunate, and it was inappropriate. The Brooks amendment proposes to take it out, and we are going to have spirited debate during this rule, I predict, and during the debate on the bill; but make no mistake about it, however important you think or I think the immigration issue is, however much we think that that should come to this floor for consideration, this bill, a bill on the defense of the United States of America, is not the right bill for us to consider it in. There are other committees of jurisdiction that are supposed to do that--Homeland Security, for example. Those committees need to go through their process and make sure they do what they need to do, and then it can come to this floor, but it should not come to this floor to confuse this bill that deals with the defense of the United States of America. This rule, Madam Speaker, is an extremely fair rule made after a lot of debate, allowing an enormous number of amendments, and I urge its support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Madam 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.

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I predicted in my opening statement, we have heard a lot about a number of things that don't have to do with the defense of the United States of America. For 53 straight years, the Congress of the United States and the Presidents of the United States have worked together in a bipartisan fashion to pass a National Defense Authorization Act to provide for the defense of the American people, the number one job we have under the Constitution; yet we find ourselves here today literally tearing ourselves apart as a body over issues that don't have anything to do with defending America. I want to urge people on both sides, however they feel about all these issues, to understand that whether you win or lose your amendment on the committee or the floor, at the end of the day, we come together as Americans, and we defend our country. That is what our constituents send us here to do. If we can't come together on that, then we are truly lost as a nation. I don't think we are lost, but we wander off in places we shouldn't go when we have debates like we have had today. It is unfortunate. I am the descendant of immigrants. I dare say virtually everybody in this body is a descendant of immigrants. It is not even debatable that immigration is good for this country, or the vast majority of us wouldn't even be here. That is not the point of this bill. The point of this bill is to defend the country. We heard a lot about the OCO account. It was called a slush fund. This President and Presidents before him have asked for an OCO account every year since it was first created. Not once has it been a slush fund. It has been used to defend the United States of America, as the OCO account that is in this bill will be used to defend the United States of America. The gentleman from Massachusetts has been around here longer than I have, but I am sure he knows that the primary jurisdiction of the House for an AUMF--and this Congress--is with the Foreign Affairs Committee, not with the Armed Services Committee that was the committee of jurisdiction on this bill. The Foreign Affairs Committee is working on an AUMF, but they are waiting for information from the White House, which they haven't gotten yet. Maybe we can get that information from the White House, get to work on the AUMF, and get it to this floor in the appropriate vehicle, but the National Defense Authorization Act is not the appropriate vehicle and so ruled the Rules Committee, and that is what is in this rule. I have heard a lot of talk about what is germane to the bill and what is not germane to the bill. This is not about germaneness. This is about a central function of the Federal Government. It is about defending the American people. As I stand here today during this debate, I am reminded of the great sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their families make on a daily basis so that we may continue to debate and deliberate in an open way. Debate and discussion have been the foundation of our democracy, and we owe that to our Nation's military. The least we can do is honor that tradition of service and sacrifice by continuing the bipartisan tradition of passing an NDAA for the 54th straight year. Whether there are people on one side that want to vote against the bill because there is something in the there they don't like about immigration or people on the other side are trying to make a partisan point by telling their side, ``Don't vote for the bill because of OCO,'' or because we are worried about what it might do to domestic policy programs, we need to put that out of our minds. At the end of the day, whatever amendments are added or not added to this bill, it is our job to pass this bill to defend the country. There will be plenty of opportunity for partisan disagreement down the road, but not on this issue. At this time, we need to come together, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans. Let's pass this rule. Let's debate these amendments, all 135 of them, but most importantly, let's pass this act. Let's give our military men and women the resources they need to do their job. 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 yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the 946th Forward Surgical Team as they prepare for their next deployment. The 946th was constituted on January 23, 1997 and activated at Fort James H. Wright Reserve Center in Mobile, Alabama. The unit began with six officers and six enlisted soldiers. The 946th has been deployed into active theater in Afghanistan on multiple occasions. The 946th has attended multiple training programs and has received several accolades, including recognition as an ``outstanding unit'' during Joint Thunder in 2007. During their deployments, they withstood multiple mortar attacks while supporting major combat missions. While providing medical coverage during combat operations, the 946th performed everything from appendectomies to amputations to open-heart surgery related to trauma. During one deployment, the unit treated over 500 patient traumas, 380 surgical patients, oversaw the conduction of 750 x-rays and laboratory procedures, and coordinated over 300 MEDEVAC transfers. In April of 2012, Major Forrest L. Neese assumed command of the 946th. In March of 2014, the 946th received honors for its role in WAREX 2014 at Fort McCoy in Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, as the 946th prepares to deploy in support of Operation Freedom's Sentinel, I want to applaud them for their commitment and service to our nation. They provide such a unique and critical role in supporting our men and women who are working to preserve democracy in a very dangerous part of the world. So on behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I wish them safe travels in their deployment and I ask God to bless the 946th, their families, and all those who serve our great nation.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. And Ohio as we do about these alternative energy programs that we are subsidizing. No one is subsidizing those coal miners; no one is subsidizing their families that have lost their means of living, but we are going to subsidize all these other companies--maybe they are doing good things, maybe they are not--because we have a lopsided understanding about how to produce energy in this country. Let the energy sector go. Let oil and natural gas and coal go. Look what we have done to the price of oil and the price of gas just over the last year because they have innovated on their own. They don't need the government to innovate for them. They need the government to get out of their way. If the gentlewoman wants to respond, I would be happy to yield to her.