Liz Cheney

Ms. CHENEY

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), who is on the Armed Services Committee, to discuss his resolution.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Smith, is worried about a lot of things that really just aren't the case over here on this side of the aisle. I agree with Mr. Smith that weakness is provocative. We certainly need look no further than the Obama administration to see what happens when the United States is weak, to see what happens when the United States abandons its longstanding allies in the Middle East, including Israel, in order to provide funding and a pathway to nuclear weapons for the Iranians. We see what happened again and again and again. We saw what happened when the Obama administration, President Obama, decided to pull troops out of Iraq based on a timeline that he established in Washington, D.C., with no regard to the facts on the ground. We saw what happened. What happened was the rise of ISIS. So the problem that we have is, in order to deter, we have to make sure people understand that we are strong. We have lived through 8 years in the previous administration of apologies and weakness, and President Trump is turning that around. President Trump is making clear that people understand that no longer will that be the case, and that we, in fact, are going to be a Nation that stands up for what we believe in. I think it is also very educational, Mr. Speaker, to think about this debate we are having here today, this discussion, and to think about what it sounds like to men and women who are serving overseas and to their family members. What we are supposed to be discussing here and debating here is a resolution that expresses a sense of this body that the United States Navy has been hurt extensively by the lack of predictable funding. Instead, what we are getting is a lot of discussion and conversation about a whole bunch of other things that I am more than happy to debate. Mr. Smith and I clearly have very different opinions about the economy and about what you have to do to generate economic growth in this economy. But that is not this resolution. I think we have the opportunity here, on a bipartisan basis, once and for all, to show that we are in a position where we are going to provide the kind of support that our men and women in uniform need. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. These resolutions do lay out the steps necessary. These resolutions make clear that the House has done its business, has done its work; we need the Senate to do its work, and we need to get these bills to the President's desk. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, the only person that had hope as a policy was Barack Obama, and my colleague is right, that he is no longer-- President Obama is no longer in the Oval Office. However, the damage that his policies did are so devastating and so long-lasting that we are having to dig out from under it. That is why we are here today. We are here today because not only have continuing resolutions hurt the Department of Defense, the policies of the last 8 years have created a situation, geopolitically and militarily, where the work that we have got to do to undo those very ill-guided policies is significant and requires the kind of funding that we are talking about. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) to close.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CHENEY

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 994) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Marine Corps faces significant readiness challenges and that budgetary uncertainty impedes the Corps' ability to meet ongoing and unexpected national security threats, putting United States national security at risk.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, to discuss his resolution.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking both my colleagues, Mr. Wittman from Virginia, Mr. Gallagher from Wisconsin, and all of the folks on the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, as well as the folks on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, led by Chairwoman Kay Granger, for their tremendous work on these crucially important issues. I think that, again, Mr. Smith has highlighted, really, the crux of this issue, and the crux of this issue is whether or not we as a body are going to recognize that we have the ability here and what we do here will determine whether or not we provide the support and the resources our troops need or whether we increase the risk they face. When we are facing a situation where we have had more servicemembers die in training accidents than in combat in the last year, that is an unacceptable and indefensible situation. Mr. Speaker, on this particular resolution, I want to thank my colleague from Wisconsin for introducing this resolution. As a marine, he understands better than most how what we do in this body impacts our men and women in uniform. H. Res. 994 highlights the vast readiness impacts we have seen in the Marine Corps over the past 9 years of continuing resolutions, sequestration, and overall budget dysfunction. We do not want to be in a position, Mr. Speaker, where the Marines are forced to continue to use aging or outdated equipment, or they don't have the funds necessary to receive the training they require to undo this readiness crisis, or they don't have the flexibility they need to respond to the fact that we have got an absolutely changing world of warfare. They need agility to do that, and that requires funds from this body. As my colleagues have said, we have made great progress. Over the past year, we have increased the defense spending caps for fiscal year 2018 and 2019, and we have agreed to fund the Department of Defense at $700 billion for fiscal year 2018. Mr. Speaker, we have got to get that done now for fiscal year 2019. The readiness crisis was not created in a single year, and it will take many years of effort to be able to address it. The bill that we considered in the House just a few weeks ago passed with over 300 bipartisan votes. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can now, today, commit all of ourselves as a body and urge our colleagues on the other side of this building to ensure that the work that we do is worthy of the men and women in uniform who protect all of us, to ensure that we stay on track to get this bill passed by the Senate and to the President's desk before the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) to close.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CHENEY

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Velma Bulvin on the celebration of her 100th birthday. I join her friends and family in extending my best to her on this occasion and in celebrating her life and contributions to our great state and country. I hope she uses this momentous day to do the same. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to Velma Bulvin on her birthday. May her year be filled with happiness and blessings.

Ms. CHENEY

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 964 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from California (Mrs. Torres) 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

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

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 964, which provides for the consideration of additional amendments to H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019. This rule makes in order an additional 29 amendments: 8 Republican, 16 Democratic, and 5 bipartisan amendments. Mr. Speaker, as we discussed on this floor yesterday and many times previously, providing funding that our men and women in uniform need to defend this great Republic is by far the most important responsibility we have as Members of the United States Congress. Today's rule gives us the opportunity to get the input and hear the voices of additional Members as we listen to and consider their amendments to H.R. 6157. In the National Defense Strategy that was released late last year, Secretary Mattis described the situation facing our Armed Forces this way: ``Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the longstanding rules-based international order--creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory.'' Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would say more than any that we have lived through and any that we have existed in since World War II. Without the kind of sustained and predictable investment that appropriations bills and the appropriation process needs, we will simply not be able to restore readiness to modernize our military or to maintain our strategic advantage. We will rapidly lose our ability to project our forces as well as our military advantage. We cannot allow that to happen. The rule and the underlying bill that we are debating today are both crucial steps to continue the progress that we have already made and crucial steps toward ensuring that the commitment that we made in order to provide 2 years of funding for our men and women in uniform is kept. This bill helps provide the very resources and modernization that the National Defense Strategy said were so crucially needed. We have to make sure that our Department of Defense can provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our Nation. Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, gives us the opportunity to debate this important piece of legislation and get the input from Members of this body who would like to make it even better. One of the amendments, Mr. Speaker, made in order by this rule was offered by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members. It would allow the Department of Defense to dual buy CVN-80 and CVN-81. These are our next two aircraft carriers. The Navy has stated that this dual buy authority could likely save taxpayers $2.5 billion on these two aircraft carriers. This amendment serves two purposes. It helps ensure that we are using taxpayer resources wisely, and it helps move us toward the Navy's necessary and stated goal of a 355-ship Navy. There are several other good amendments, Mr. Speaker, made in order by this rule, some that I probably won't support. But the rule takes serious ideas about how we can strengthen the Nation's Armed Forces, how we can make the defense of this Nation our priority, and brings them to the floor of this House for our consideration. I look forward to considering each amendment and completing the Defense Appropriations process in this House. The work we are doing here is vital, but it is only part of the job, Mr. Speaker. We have to pass the appropriations bill through this body, and then we have to make sure that our colleagues on the other side of this building, our colleagues in the Senate, do the same. We can't hold funding for our military hostage to other priorities, even for additional domestic spending. We simply must provide reliable funding at necessary levels for the men and women in uniform who are putting their lives on the line for all of us. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule that will allow consideration of additional amendments to H.R. 6157. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this House actually is going to be taking up a bill that addresses these issues. Mr. Goodlatte's bill will come up within the next hour or so here on this floor. The bill itself would require that the Department of Homeland Security maintain the care and custody of aliens together, with their children, as well as providing funding for DHS family residential centers. So I think that it is fair to say that there is bipartisan concern for the plight of these children, the plight of these families. I think all of us who are mothers understand the emotions involved here and understand that we don't want to perpetuate a situation that, in fact, also was occurring when President Obama was in office. But I think it is also important to note that we have got to secure our border and we have got to be in a position where we are recognizing that people who come here illegally cannot be allowed to stay. People who come here illegally must, in fact, be deported, must, in fact, be apprehended. We need to end, as we have, the practice of catch and release that we saw during the Obama administration. It is a security issue for us. The pain and the emotion that we all feel for the families that have been separated I think we all also feel for the angel families, the families that President Trump has met with, the families that have been the victims of violence perpetuated by people who have come to this country illegally. So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is absolutely the wrong thing to do, as my colleague urges the notion that we should defeat this rule so that we can address immigration. It just simply is wrong on a procedural matter. We ought to, in fact, support this rule, pass this rule, not once again hold hostage the men and women in uniform to another issue. The position of the minority here is apparently that we should stop our bipartisan process and our bipartisan movement on funding the troops so that we can take up an issue that we are already planing to take up. It is not necessary and it is unjustified. I actually would urge exactly the opposite of my colleague from the Rules Committee. We ought to, in fact, pass this rule. Mr. Speaker, as we think about this issue, we have got to remember that there are families involved not just with respect to the issue of immigration; there are families involved with respect to the men and women who are defending all of us. I don't think that it is acceptable, I don't think it is justifiable, for us ever to be in a position where we are telling the mother or the father or the spouse of a servicemember that we couldn't get them the funding they needed because our process is broken, that we couldn't get them the funding that they need because we are bickering with each other. I think that is, in fact, absolutely an abrogation of our constitutional responsibilities and duties. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who is vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would thank my colleague very much for her son's service in our Armed Forces, and I would also just note that we agree. We don't think that our military servicemembers' salaries should be held hostage for any issue, no matter the issue. That is why we in this body believe we should pass a stand-alone Defense Appropriations bill. That is why we believe that we ought to pass the rule that we are debating today, so that we can get to the debate and the discussion about the stand-alone Defense Appropriations bill. That is why we believe the Senate should take it up and pass it that way as well. We shouldn't add any legislation to it. The funding that our men and women in uniform need should not be made a situation where it is held hostage to other political issues. It is simply not justifiable, no matter the issue. I would note once again, Mr. Speaker, and this is crucially important, that one of the fundamental values that our men and women in uniform are fighting for and defending is the rule of law, and for too long in the previous administration we had policies like catch and release that were sanctioned from the top. We had policies like sanctuary cities that were sanctioned from the top. We had situations, Mr. Speaker, where the laws of the Republic that were passed by this body, passed by the Senate, signed into law by the President, were simply not enforced. That is not a situation that we can allow to continue. I think it is important that we address the issue of the separation of families at the border. No one wants to see that happen or that continue. I think we need to focus on it. We need to make sure that we come up with solutions for it, like the kinds of solutions that are going to be presented on this floor shortly. I think, as we do that, we have also got to remember the larger issues involved, including the security of the Nation. That is not just about the resources that this bill provides; it is also about making sure that our borders are secure. One of the things that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to deal with and to address time and again is funding for a border wall. President Trump has made clear that part of securing this Nation is providing funding for a border wall. That is something that we have got to make sure we appropriate. That is also something that the bill that we will consider this afternoon does. I am hopeful that we will see support from the other side of the aisle for a bill that deals with the issue of separating children from families at the border. I also would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this House has been very dedicated and focused and very active in dealing with the issue of human trafficking. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know very well that many of the situations we are seeing at our border that involve children are not family situations. They are situations where those children are brought here by human traffickers. Those children are brought here to be exploited. That is something we have got to make sure we protect against. When we as a nation allow sanctuary cities to continue to exist, when we look the other way and say we won't enforce our immigration laws, we are, in fact, perpetuating a system where those children are put at risk, and we are not doing our duty, our fundamental obligation, to protect and defend those children. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the concern for the children of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were as broad as it needs to be, to encompass, frankly, all of the threats that these kids are facing. I think it is important that we pass this rule, we pass this underlying bill, and we move on to address and focus on the issue of immigration in a way in which Members on both sides of the aisle can agree. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I agree that the court determination, essentially rejecting the Korematsu decision yesterday, was the right one. And we agree that the episode in our Nation's history, in which we were holding Japanese Americans in internment camps, was a dark one and was something that should not have happened. But I think that it is unjustifiable, and I think, frankly, it just politicizes the challenge that we are all facing to compare the current situation at our borders with Japanese internment camps, or with concentration camps, or many of the other exaggerations and, I think, highly irresponsible language that we have heard throughout this debate. We all have to come together to solve the problem, but we have to come together to enforce our laws. If, in fact, my colleagues are interested in enforcing the laws, if they are interested in solving the problem for the families at the border, and if they are interested in closing the loopholes in the law that have resulted in the separation of those children, then I assume that they will be voting in favor of Mr. Goodlatte's bill that will be coming up for consideration today. I would also say, Mr. Speaker, it is not accurate for our colleagues to say that families seeking asylum are having their children ripped out of their arms. Anybody who is seeking asylum, who goes to a port of entry, is not going to be subject to prosecution and will not be separated from their families. I think it is very important for us to make clear that we are talking about people seeking to come into this country illegally, and, in many cases, as I mentioned before, we are talking about children who are being trafficked. We have to make sure, as we deal with this issue and as we come to a resolution and a solution that will help these kids, that, in fact, we do it in a way that addresses the facts. Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we focus back on the issue that we are here to talk about today, and that is Defense Appropriations. What we have seen this afternoon is the same thing that we seem to see every time this bill comes up. This is a really important, really good bipartisan bill, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk about everything under the Sun, apparently, except Defense Appropriations. If we don't get Defense Appropriations right, if we don't get it passed through this House and passed through the Senate and signed before September 30, we are looking at the possibility of another continuing resolution for the Defense Department. Now, we have seen this happen before. We saw it happen last year. We watched the Democrats in the Senate, for example, shut down the government because they wanted to hold our troops hostage, because they were in a position where they wanted to do everything possible except just pass Defense Appropriations. Tragically, Mr. Speaker, this isn't just a matter of words like ``readiness,'' ``modernization,'' and ``capability.'' Those words all matter. But there are real men and women behind those words, and families behind them. So when we are in a situation where we abrogate our duty, and we don't provide the funds that our men and women in uniform need, we end up putting the lives of our servicemen and -women on the line. I don't think that any Member of this body ever wants to be in a situation again where the Secretary of Defense, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or the service chiefs come in and say that we, as a body, have done more damage to the military than any enemy has in the field. That is what we have heard consistently and repeatedly over the course of the last several years. Taking the step of passing this rule and making sure that we pass this underlying appropriations bill is a crucial part of continuing on the path of fulfilling the commitment that we made and fulfilling the commitment that the President of the United States made that he would rebuild our military. Every man and woman in uniform, who puts the uniform on, as Secretary Mattis has said, is essentially writing a blank check to this Nation, and it is a blank check that is payable with their lives. We ought to stop spending our time on this floor debating a whole bunch of other things. The Senate ought to stop spending its time stuck in the filibuster rule, stuck in the process of going on and on for hours and hours over matters that, frankly, don't have anywhere near the importance that funding our troops does, and they ought to move to get this bill passed. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 6157.

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

Ms. CHENEY

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, during the previous administration, deep funding cuts as well as budget dysfunction in Congress have allowed a real atrophying of our military readiness in the Department of Defense. We have seen a steep decline in our capabilities while at the same time our adversaries have been making advances and increasing their ability to threaten us. We now face a situation, particularly with nations like China and Russia, where they are developing capabilities that we may not be able to defend against. Countering this threat requires funding for the space-based missile defense tracking system in line 117 of the defense-wide RDTE account, funding that was authorized but not included in the appropriations bill. This capability is absolutely critical to improving our missile defense capabilities, particularly to address the rapidly increasing threat from hypersonic weapons, which our committee has placed particular focus on this year with broad bipartisan support. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, funding was not included in line 92 of the defense-wide RDTE account to continue critical development of laser scaling technologies for boost-phase ICBM missile defense. This technology has the potential that we need and that is crucial to give our warfighters the capability to shoot down missiles while they are still in a boost phase, making our adversaries have to think twice, understanding that missiles they fire at us could be destroyed over their own soil. Mr. Chairman, funding for both of these capabilities is included in both the House and Senate version of the NDAA. I have offered amendments, Mr. Chairman, to provide funding for these capabilities consistent with the NDAA and the Missile Defense Agency's revised budget request for fiscal year 2019. In an effort to allay concerns about finding offsets for these, I am willing to withdraw my amendments, and I would ask Chairwoman Granger for a commitment to fully support the capabilities during the conference process on the appropriations bill in the Senate.

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's willingness to work with me on this important issue, as well as her tireless work on this critical bill. I will not be offering my amendments.

Ms. CHENEY

Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 961 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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