prevalent within our reserve component forces. more than half a million members currently serve in the army guard and reserve. hundreds of incidents of sexual assault are reported each year and it is estimated that several hundred more go unreported. the reserve component of the army continue to suffer from imbalances for budget management and slow investigations that delay access to care for hundreds of sexual assault victims. my amendment directs the department of defense to take steps to address these issues. sexual violence is a criminal behavior and it has no place in our military. we must regain the trust of the service members who have been brave enough to come forward to report those crimes by bettering our military justice system. congress has a responsibility to protect the service members who make immeasurable sacrifices to serve and protect our country. we many u.s. -- we must foster a

system that encourages service members to seek help and care and that protects the very people that keep our nation safe. with that, i urge adoption of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. chip the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. thornberry: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady is ecognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from washington, thank him for his leadership, and the gentleman from texas for their -- making their way through a very, very prnt action on behalf of the american people and that is the defense authorization. i thank them for the amendments that were made en bloc and i hope to speak quickly about

these important amendments. i'm very grateful, over the years i have consistently introduced the triple negative breast cancer amendment because of the many women in the united states military who benefit from the research necessary so my amendment authorizes, encourages increased collaboration between the d.o.d. and national institutes of health regarding combating triple negative breast cancer. it does have a particular impact on african-american women but it impacts white women, hispanic women and others as well. this is a serious illness that affects between 10% and 17% of female breast cancer patients and is more likely to cause death. my amendment would help to save lives and i'm delighted because this would impact active duty women as well as veteran bus in particular, active duty women with the testing and it affects women under 50 years of age and therefore women who would be in the united states military. i'm very grateful for the acceptance of the south sudan

amendment. my amendment directs the department of defense to prepare contingency plans to assist reliefing ornyizations in the delivery of humanitarian relief in south sudan and engage in consultation with south sudan military counterparts to de-escalate conflicts. famine in south sudan has been created by conflict. famine was declared formally in two count yoifs unity state. hundreds of thousands would be in jeopardy of die from famine. it's come about because of the conflict between the president and his former chief of staff or his former vice president. we need to have the engagement to save lives. i thank the support of this amendment. likewise the north korea icbm, as i was in europe during the fourth of july, my amendment in particular supports upholding the goal os of this e1963 treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere and outer space,

under water, addresses the fact that our nation should take the next step in preparing for nuclear north cree and -- north korea and establishes that the states may be far greater. we have all been discussing the question of north korea and icbm's. we have to be studious in assessing it. let me also say, however, that i am disappointed that the amendment dealing with the aumf on north korea did not get in. i do believe it is an important issue that we must be concerned about. i want to continue to work with he committee on ptsd and ensuring that even though authorized, that more funding can come. i ask for $.5 million. then i want to indicate the importance of recognizing, in light of the large footprint that russia now has in its effort to undermine the democracy in this country that we we be very concerned about recruitment of college students by foreign agents and i had amendment for us to be concerned about that. i look forward to working with

the committee and plan to introduce this as legislation because a young man by the name of glen shriver, now standing tall -- and outstanding college student majoring in international studies at a college in michigan had experiences when he traveled to, seeking experiences, doing a study abroad in china, developed -- developed an interest in chinese culture, an he was sought after by the chinese. i also want to work with the committee on addressing the question of elections for our soldiers, and finally, i want to make sure that we stop cyberattacks by a foreignent -- by foreign entities into our elections. i am asking for support for my amendment on the korea icbm, the triple negative breast cancer and the support of conflicts -- not conflict but support of helping humanitarian aid get so south sudan. i want to thank the ranking member and chairman for their support for my amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from

washington reserve the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. smucker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smucker: i rise today to urge my colleagues to support my bipartisan amendment introduced with representative sinema. this would expand opportunities for active duty military men and women to learn career skills and provide education that would assist them as they transition back to civilian life. the current united services military apprenticeship program is an effective program that provides this employer specific training. but that program is only offered@navy, marine corps, and coast guard which is less than half of our uniform services personnel. this amendment expands the program to operate to any member -- to offer to any member of u.s. armed services, army, navy, marine corps, coast guard, and

the national oceanic ands a mot -- atmospheric administration. we should make it easier for home to transition to civilian life with a steady job and at the same time infuse our work force with the strong leadership skills that the military can provide. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves this egentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. snider. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smider -- snyder thank thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my colleague from washington. i rise today to voice my support for my amendment to the national defense authorization act. our men and women in uniform are not immune from the epidemic of opioid addiction. the national institute of health reports rates of prescription opioid misuse are higher among service members than among civilians due to the use of these drugs to treat symptoms of ptsd and chronic pain. our brave service members have

earned our gratitude and edeserve our highest quality of care. we need to do all we can to ensure our military doctors are equiped with the most up to date best practices to help fight back against this disease. this amendment requires medical professionals and defendant of -- department of defense to undertake 12 hours of training every three years in order to prevent overprescribing and better identify and treat abuse. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment to ensure our active duty military get the medical care they truly deserve. with that, i yield my time back. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i reserve the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to the gentlelady from new mexico, ms. lujan fwri sham. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized.

ms. lujan grisham: thank you. i rise today in support of my amendment which encourages partnerships between the d.o.d., d.o.e. and private sector to cilitate the license-- the licensure, transfer of innovative technologies we feel can't let ground breaking research and new technologies in our nation's laboratories sit idle when they have the potential to re-energize domestic manufacturing, create high-paying jobs and boost our economy. it's not just government or private sector, it's government and private sector working together to create opportunities that have led to the development of many items in our marketplace today, including g.p.s. both d.o.e. and d.o.d. have programs to support transfer of programs to private business. but they don't work well

together. my amendment would support the commercialization of withouting -- cutting edge technologies and make them more widely available to american businesses and consumers. i urge my colleagues to support and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: we have no further speakers so i urge adoption of the even blk amendment and yield back the balance of our time. the chaplain: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i too yield back and urge adoption of the amendments en bloc. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i offer additional amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 2. consisting of amendments numbered 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 48, 50, 4, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 53 printed in house report 115-217 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: the clerk will -- pursuant to house resolution 440, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, this en bloc package consists of a variety of amendments from members from both sides of the aisle. i believe that they deserve the support of the house. i recommend adoption of the en bloc package and reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with the chairman. i support the en bloc package. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i too yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i move that the committee now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r.

2810, direct me to report that it has come to no resolution thron. -- thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2810 and has come to no resolution thereon. does any member seek recognition for one-minute peeches? the clerk lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. sanford of south carolina for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request

s granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the my privilege and honor to address you here from the floor of the house of representatives in this great deliberative bodyy that has been deliberating all day long in the markup of the national defense authorization act. the work that's done, especially by the members of the armed services committee, goes deeply into the destiny and future of america. they have to look at the whole globe and the whole budget and they have to look at the equipment that's out there and the technology that's developing. and it's a heavy responsibility to present this ndaa authorization bill to the floor. and often there are efforts that are made to turn into a political bill rather than the

bill that can defend america. and ensure that we have the best military that the world has ever seen, and the best equipment for the best military the world has ever seen. and the best standards to uphold the best people, the nobility of the united states military, and so i want to compliment the -- especially the members of the committee and the chair-for his work. and the work that's -- chairman for his work. and the work that's been done here on the floor. they're going to take a deep breath and tomorrow we'll bring brink this thing back to the floor for a vote and a to teng final passage. i came -- and a potential final passage. i came to the floor to address a different topic. i may revert back to the ndaa, and i intend to do that, mr. speaker, but i have wanted to come to this floor for some time to discuss the circumstances going on here in the united states of america. and an issue that has been very important to me for a long, long time. and that's the issue of the united states of america getting to the point where we finally declare a language.

our english language as the official language of the united states. i sat down once and i went through the -- when we had the world book encyclopedia, before the internet more or lessee it. the -- or less eroded the encyclopedia was everywhere in the country and everyone where in the world. i took a 19 the am al ma knack and looked at all the flags of every country in the world and i look up every single country to find out, do they have an official language or don't they? from that almanac, some of the countries have changed since then, but every single country in the world had an official language, at least one of them, of pt for the united states america. and as i studied this, and it comes to me, the more i look at history, the more i look at the forces that move the world, and

the people in it, often -- it's this. the culture. it's the cultural found -- it's the cultural foundation that moves policy in america and in every country in the world. the culture lives in the hearts and minds of its people. what in the hearts and minds of its people is if you're a member of a nation state, what pinds us together is having a common experience, a common cause. a common enemy, perhaps. a common sense of history. a common sense of struggle. a common sense of an economic -- of economic ties. and also a common language. a common language is the most powerful unifying force anywhere in the world throughout all of history. even more powerful than religion. and religion is a very powerful unifying force. and sometimes it can be a dividing force. but of those powerful unifying forces we have, it might be race, ethnicity, it might be

national origin, it can be those things. it could be religion. but all of these components come together to make your culture and the binding force. we've proven in this country over and -- force we've proven in this country over and over again is a common language. some years ago i sat down with several ambassadors to the united states from israel. and i remarked to them that they had established hebrew as their official language in 1954. they established the country was approved by the motion of the united nations in 1948 and six years later the realies established hebrew as their official language. and i asked them, why did you do that? hebrew was a dead language. it was essentially a language only of prayer for 2,000 years. but they resurrected that language and decided, we're going to make it a common form of communication, currency in israel in order to bind the israelis together. and so they did. and they deployed the hebrew

language in the streets of israel, in fact, there weren't any streets in tel aviv at the time. they created tel aviv also as a manufactured city to add to the glory of israel. but as the people walked in the streets they decided, we're going to embrace this language of hebrew. so it is today the language of the israeli people, hebrew. why did you do that? their answer to mes was, we looked at the united states, we knew we were going to be assimilating people from many countries in the world, maybe even all countries in the world. and we needed -- they would come from all races, all ethnicities, all national origins, coming back because primarily they were attracted back because they were of jewish faith. many of them by jewish blood and heritage. but they came into israel and they needed to be bound together as israelis. and they -- and best way to bind them together, these are smart people, was a common

language. a common language that was unique, was helpful also. it gave them the distinction and the pride that they would have, of the nationalively of -- nationalism of being israeli. so hebrew became the official language of the fresh new nation state israel, just six years after it was formed. i was not astonished by that. but i was very impressed by the wisdom that they used to apply the necessity of a common language to bind them together so that they could be one people. and i went there and i traveled and i looked at what they were doing. they had brought in several hundred people from ethiopia to come into the israeli society and they get six months to study hebrew. and to be assimilated into the broader israeli economy. those who come to israel that don't have -- that are not illiterate -- or excuse me, that are not literate in their

own language, they first had to teach them to read and write in the language that was native to them. their natural language. and then they taught them hebrew and converted them into being able to read and write and speak in hebrew. they got six months to do that and then out into the world they went. it's a pretty fast assimulation process. i don't know if there's a country since other than the united states that's done a better job of assimilating people from everywhere in the world into one society, that's happened in israel. i would say that i never, never ever hear anybody talk about divisions within israelis. i don't hear them speaking, well, you're an african-american israeli or an african israeli, or a german israeli or a russian israeli. there's a lot of them. but they see themselves as israelis. they have a common language, common culture. and they're pulled together out of a need to have a common defense. and a common cause. and that's the model that they

created by looking at the model of the united states of america. because we had been so successful in assimilating people into this country and binding us together by having a common language. that common language, a common form of communicationses currency that allows us to communicate with every american, everywhere, to walk into any city council meeting, any county supervisers meeting, any state legislature, any discussionses that go on here in the house, in the senate, any meetings that go on within the government buildings and the federal and the state and the political subdivisions thereof. all of our meetings take place in english. anybody that speaks english can walk in there and understand them. that's the policy that brought us together as a people. that's the policy that was so admired by the israelis that they emulated it. and yet we sit here still, the only country in the world, by the measure that i described,

the world book encyclopedia in the 1979 almanac at least, only country in the world that doesn't have at least one official language. we have a common language, it's english. we need to make our official language english. and of course i've introduced legislation, mr. speaker, to do that. the h.r. 997. it's been h.r. 997 since i came to this congress. and one day we're going to see a president sign that bill. and it might very well be this president we have today, president trump. he spoke in favor of official language. and i certainly agree with him on this. but it's more than this. when president bill clinton introduced the executive order, i believe it's 13166, i'm operating from a dusty memory here, perhaps i've got it on a note. but let's go with 13166. that executive order directed that any government facility that's there needs to

accommodate any language requested thank cuments from anybody who walk -- request that comes from anybody who walks into a building. it runs up the cost of our government in an unnecessary way. the idea, i suppose is, we're going to make it easy for people that have trouble understanding english, and so if we do that eventually they'll pick up and learn and understand english and they'll assimilate into society. because after all, every other generation, every other people that's come into america has assimilated into our society. but when you change the rules and you change the format and you take away the incentive, then you can't expect to have the same results. how it was, was, people were brought into this country, they were immersed into the american culture and the american civilization. and that -- and for example, my grandmother came to the united states from germany. and she spoke only german.

and my father went to school in kindergarten, one of seven siblings all together, number three in line, went to school speaking german. and when he was -- he was quite confused on his first day of kindergarten, even though kindergarten was a german word, he came home from school, walked into the house and said hello inierman. and my grandmother, his mother, said to her son, emmitt, speaking german in this household is for you from now on verboten, i came here to become an american that means speaking english and you will go to school and learn english and you will bring it home and you will teach it to me. my father had spoken his last words of german in that household and he went to school and learned english , he brought

it home and taught it to his mother and she learned english from her son, her sons, but primarily my father. that was an expression of gratitude to the country that had embraced her and welcomed her. she embraced this country, the united states of america, and of the six son she is raised and a daughter, one of the sons was physically unable to serve, four of the remaining five went back to fight against the fatherland, and my father went to the south pacific for two and a half years to fight the japanese and came home weighing 115 pounds on u.s. rations with a lot of stories he never told. and that was the way she thanked the host country, the united states of america, and there i sat growing up in a small town in iowa, being told, you hit the jackpot, steve. you were born into the greatest country on the face of the

earth. it was -- you could not have been born any place better than this. the united states of america is the greatest country in the world, and you need to pay back this country that so welcomed the people that have come here. well, i want to continue to do that by tying together our society and our civilization, in iting us together, and english is the very best way to do that. we can eliminate the billions of dollars that were unnecessarily -- that we're unnecessarily spending by proliferating other languages within our government. i think it's important that people learn multiple languages. it's porn especially in this world we're in today where we've got so much foreign trade and so much foreign travel and so many foreign visitors into this country. and i do a significant amount of travel myself. but, but, to try to promote other languages to be spoke on the streets of america, or confuse our students by catering

to the language that is the language of their home rather than the language of the streets, then we end up with ethnic enclaves and people that, people that really don't embrace the american culture and the american civilization. i was quite struck by the book that was written by winston churchill called the history of the english speaking people. and i carefully read through that book, forward and back. it took me quite a while to get through it carefully and i absorbed it and soak it up. when i finished the book, it was about 1 hirt in the morning, and i looked up at the ceiling and i thought, huh, wherever the english speaking peoples have gone, by reading churchill's book, freedom has accompanied the english language. how did that happen? the concept of freedom is carry by the english language all over the world and if you look where the british have gone, as far away as india where they taught english, and you look at the

african continent where the english language has been established and you see freedom is more likely to be found in english speaking peoples than in any other speaking peoples on the planet. is that some kind of coincidence? or is there something about our language that carries freedom with it, or sit about the people that carry the language that understand the concept of god-given liberty and then they transport that god-given liberty and freedom to the countries that they are settling, that they're contributing technology and science and medicine and literature and academics to, and economy to. i think it's a couple of things. one is, the british had enough confidence in their culture and their civilization to export it to the rest of the world. and we as americans up until the last generation or so have had enough confidence in our culture and civilization to export it to the rest of the world. and the rest of the -- rest of the world has embraced our values and we have seen it happen over and over again.

i'd point out, attaturk in turkey who for 40 years moved turkey to the west and the prosperity in the nation state of turkey improved the closer they got to thes we. i recall seeing pictures recently in afghanistan from the 1960's when the women wore western clothing and there was a lot more civility in afghanistan and more prosperity in afghanistan. i sat with the son of the shah of iran a couple of months ago and we had an engaging conversation, we have met several times along the way throughout the years. his father, the shah, was moving iran to the west. and the women were uncovered, they wore western clothes, and their education was accelerated and they were moving into the western world and they had significantly more prosperity than they have today and part of that was lengish -- english language, part of it was culture, part of it was the western civilization that we are. we wouldn't have a western civilization if we didn't have

an english language that helps tie that together. and western civilization itself is rooted in the real estate where the very footprint of christianity laid the foundation for civiluation. -- civilization. and most time it's the english language that ties that together. where it doesn't exist they have more troubles than where it does exist. so i tip my hat to winston churchill for the wisdom that came together in his book. i want to reiterate, mr. speaker, that he never wrote that the english language took freedom to the rest of the world. he just wrote about the history of what happened to the rest of the world when english speaking peoples engaged themselves with the rest of the world. however, there's another intellect from the united kingdom, daniel hannen, a member of the european parliament and he has written a book that goes even deeper and takes a bigger

bite out of this. he says this, that as he sets in the european -- the -- as a member they have european parliament he'll put his earphones on to listen to the interpreted versions as they thereon different languages, and english is the official language they have european union, and he has an understanding, and he's at least, i will say at a minimum marginally fluent in multiple languages and as he listened to the interpreters, interpret into other languages , he would take that earphone back away from him and listen to the language they're using and then he'd hear the interpretation in the other ear and he said that what he learned was, other languages didn't have the utility to express the concept of freedom that the english language had. and i believe he's right on that. so our concept of freedom and liberty, at least theoretically and by the theory of daniel hannen, and my own, cannot be

carried in any other language and the english language does carry freedom, it expresses it like it can't be expressed in any other language because our history goes back to the magna carta and by the way, the romans, who laid the foundation for a republican form of government and the rule of law, had a significant imprint on the united kingdom what is the united kingdom today, old england, and the english language that emerged from that brought our values to us. if america had been formed by any other cull chur, civilization or language, we wouldn't be the country we are today. we wouldn't have the declaration of independence we have. we are unlikely to have the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and we're very unlikely and i'd say it would be almost impossible to conceive of a bill of rights that would give us the pillars of american exceptionalism, almost all of them, packaged up in the bill of rights.

this came from our history, our culture, the derivatives of mosaic law, greek age of reason, the roman rule of law, the roman republican form of government that flowed up into england and into other parts of europe and came about over here to the united states of america at the dawn of the industrial revolution. with unlimited natural resources, a concept of manifest destiny, a judeo christian foundation of beliefs and morality, america was a giant petri dish that was formed by, i believe, the hand of god. that shaped this nation and the foundations of this nation. i would defy anyone, challenge anyone, to reverse engineer america and come up with a better product than we have today. our principles, our values, that came to us are essential to the future of our country as well. it's not just enough to look at our history and say here's what

some of my colleagues believe, and i have trouble wit, they believe society evolves and thise lution of society can't be reversed, can't be changed, it's essentially the product that comes because of time and technology and the force of human nature and so they're often looking at this in both sides of the aisle, i just take some blame over here on the republican side of the aisle too, and they're kind of looking over their shoulder think, i am their leader. so i better get in front of this society and see where it's going because it's in the going to revert back, the fundamental principles can be changed too. i disagree, mr. speaker. i think what was a sin 2,000 years ago is a sin today. fundamental principles are fundamental principles this pillars of american exceptionalism are the pill loofers american exceptionalism and if we mess with them if we alter them, we better come up with a good and strong argument.

about why we should change these pillars of american exceptionalism of we can't just simply dish it off and say, well, society has moved away from a man and woman joined together in holy matrimony so the family doesn't matter anymore or we can redefine it to be something else. we can't just say, even though technology has proven without a doubt to us that human life begins at the moment of conception that we can ignore that scientific fact and set aside the immorality of abortion and somehow our nation is going to be blessed. we can't ignore the idea that even though adam smith wrote his book on "wealth of nations," published in what a glorious year, 1776, and he he laid out the fundamental principles of free enterprise that inspired this country and a world, we can't just disregard those principles and decide that, well, we can have now college students that reject free

enterprise and embrace socialism and managed economies on the basis of what? on the basis of some kind of belief that free enterprise and capitalism victimizes people because some people get rich and other people don't get so rich? you can be a social us, you can be a marxist, but you have to believe it's a zero sum game if you're one of those folks. then you're about redistributing the wealth but the wealth ends up in the hands of the elitists, the leftist elitists. and if you believe in free enterprise, and a meritocracy, then you know that the pie gets bigger. the more people create, the bigger the pie gets, the bigger the pie gets, the more people are prosperous. it is an axiom for the world that when technology is invented and deployed, on average it improving the standard of living for everybody. some marginally, some not even noticeably, many a lot. but it moves the world into a

modern place. how could we think that whatever we had for net assets or let me say -- that's fine, whatever we had for net assets in the year 1900 are not the net assets we had in the year 2000 and not the net assets we have in 2017. we didn't have a lot of inventions in 1900, in comparison to what we have today. it was a smelly place, it was a dirty place, it was a dangerous place, there was no modern medicine. people died of diseases and the garbage got dumped out the windows and the sewage ran in the streets. and we had invented the steam engine and we were on the cusp of an airplane and a a locomotive, well, we had locomotives by then, we were on the cusp of airplanes and automobiles. moderned me sinn hadn't emerged. pharmaceuticals hadn't emerged. surely the internet had not. of all the technology developed in the last century and it's made our efforts far more efficient.

back in the days when we were subsistence farmers and we had to send eight, 10, 12 hours a day to raise a crop to feed your family and had very little left to sell or trade, our time was occupied in staying alive. i have a cousin who sent eight years in honduras in the peace corps and he was struggling to try to get them to raise 10 bushels of corn per acre and we were raising 100 bushels at home at the time. i said why don't you bring some seed corn down there, some nitrogen fertilizer, what's the capability of the soil? 100 bushels of soil in a 100 bushel climate. can you not bring them into the modern world? his answer was, no, my biggest task is to keep them from having to eat their seed corn. well, we moved along a lot faster in our society today, we've done genetic engineer, g.m.o. products, we've gone from there 10 bushel an acher to 300

bushel, we're on the way to 300 bushel corn, we can feed seven billion people on the planet an we'll be prepared to feed nine billion people on the planet as well. technology has always moved us forward, always put us in a place where the standard of living for the world was improved, whether it was medicine, where not only our standard of live bug our quality of life and length of life has been improved dramatically over the last couple of generations, medicine, the technology from the iphone that's here that has far more storage capacity and computing pass exastity in it than was in alol low 13 that went to the moon and it saves us timeful we communicate in realtime, it's changed our lives. . when i started my construction business, we all had to go in to eat lunch at noon. we had 12:00 until 1:00, we sat by the telephone and ate our lunch, that's when we communicated and reset our afternoon. we didn't have any other way to

communicate with each other than to be by that landline phone. when they rolled that landline phone out maybe 40 years earlier or, so we were happy to have. that because we had to go talk to people face to face to communicate. now you send out an email and you don't get -- it's one that needs an answer on, it you don't get an answer back in 20, 30 minutes, you think, that person's not a very good business man or woman. they're not answering their email. they're not answering their text. now we make decision on the fly. it's -- our efficiency is far much better because the communications are far much better. that's what's happened with technology. that's what's happened with -- that moved nutes modern era of the world. but we still have this thing that's culture in civilization. we still have this thing that is language. i know that if the argument's been made to me that one day we'll hold up our iphone and someone who speaks another language, it will come back and it will be interpreted into our

ears and we'll be able to understand what they say. and i think that will happen. i think that will happen. but i don't think we should overvalue what that means. because if we're going to walk around and listen to our iphone, even when we're looking at people face to face and eye-to-eye, and if there's a delay in the interpretation and there will be that delay that will last indefinitely, we still have those pieces of our culture and our civilization that instantaneous. when people speak to us, we need to be able to hear and understand their voice and flexions. we need to watch the body language and timing with the voice inflexions. we need to pick up the slang and the vernacular that's used within the communities that we are. and a nation needs to be able to do that in realtime, instantaneously. when we can do that, we're bound together. and suspicion dissipates and unity comes together. and that's why america needs to establish english as the official language. because it is our common language. we're extraordinarily blessed to have english as our common language. and we can eliminate then the

billions of dollars that we spend, as we hire interpreterers, and is he he slow down our process, and if we establish english as the official language, we'll accelerate the learning of our language all across this land. when i go to -- i don't know why in the world spanish is in the airport in laguardia, for example. that's a long ways away from any country that speaks spanish. but that's up there. in the dual signs. english and spanish as you walk through laguardia airport. and as i'm in a foreign country, i sometimes try to learn the language. when they've got dual signs up there, i'll try to read the sign to learn that other language while i'm there. but i also know this. my eye's always revert to the lang -- eyes always revert to the language that i know and i'm comfortable with. for me it's english. when we put multiple languages on our signs in this country, it just helps facilitate it for people that -- it takes away their desire to learn a foreign

language. and so i'm a strong supporter of english as the official language. h.r. 997. d i urge its movement here and the co-sponsorship is necessary, of course, to finally get a vote on english as the official language here in the floor of the house of representatives, mr. speaker. i spent six years on this project in the state of iowa. i brought it three different ways, in three different general assemblies. and finally in the last term that i was there, i was able to -- i didn't get to see the bill signed into law because the governor wasn't thrilled about the bill signing ceremony. but he signed it nonetheless and it is the situation in iowa and in nearly 30 states in this country, to have adopted english as their official language. and the bill that i've introduced here is a mirror of the bill that is now law in iowa. we did have to sue oncen to and litigate but it was because the

secretary of state was determined to violate the law. he got pulled back in order. otherwise there would have been no litigation on the legislation itself. it's happened smoothly. and it's been a useful utility. it saved money in the state of iowa, it saved money in every state where english is the official language. and it's time for this congress to adopt it, the majority of establishes have established english as the official language, and i continue to beating this drum until such time as it becomes law and at that point then i'll begin the celebration myself, mr. speaker. as i observe the actions here on the floor, i was about to change the subject. but i will carry on for just a moment. i should also say that english is the language of success. those who have developed proficiency in the english language do better than those who don't. we're seeing people that are sometimes three generations into america without learning

the official language. and i recognize that my friend from tennessee has arrived. i would be happy to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. jim cooper. mr. cooper: i thank the gentleman from iowa for yielding. mr. speaker, i would like to ask unanimous consent that i may be permitted to revise my remarks made during consideration of amendment number 15 in the committee of the whole earlier today. beyond technical, grammatical and type graphical corrections. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cooper: i thank my friend, the gentleman from iowa, for yielding. mr. king: reclaiming my time. i'm always happy to yield the gentleman from tennessee and i appreciate his contribution to the united states congress. while i have served here, yeemp that he's been here as well -- each year that he's been here as well. i'd like to shift gears a little bit now, mr. speaker. and address the circumstances of the ndaa debate that's taken place. i want to express my disappointment with some of the decisions that were made, some

of the votes on the amendments. and also decisions that came from the rules committee. the last year, in the authorization of the national defense authorization act, i offered a number of amendments that were made in order. and i brought them here to the floor. we had a legitimate debate on those amendments. i appreciate the ability to do that. but i also want to reiterate that thanks deliberative congress -- that this is a deliberative congress. and members have a right to be on this floor and to debate and to vote. the rules committee's job is to make sure that that is in an orderly fashion. i recognize that when you have well over 100 amendments that are offered, we could be here a long time, if everyone debated those. and i would also point out that there was unanimous consent agreement that was negotiated here a little bit ago. and the chairman, mr. thornberry, made the unanimous

consent request that the balance of the amendments that weren't debated today would be approved en bloc. i supported that. i verbally voted in support of it. that's a process that we do here. but the amendments that i offered, all four of them before the rules committee, every single one of them was turned down. even a couple of them that i offered last year that were debated here on the floor. the first one was an amendment, and it is this. ensuring that the funds -- that no funds under the ndaa would be used to enlist daca aliens, the deferred action on childhood arrivals, was how president obama listed it. it would ensure no funds would be used to enlist illegal aliens into our military, including our daca personnel, into the united states military , when they were only

considered through a program which is to try to find special skill sets that aren't available in the united states. that's what the program is about. but president obama i'll say distorted that program, mr. speaker. and he began to push the daca recipients through there. daca is unconstitutional. the deferred action for childhood arrivals, as he named it, is unconstitutional. and president obama 22 times told the world that he didn't have the constitutional authority to grant amnesty to people that came into america, at least allegedly, before they were 18 years old. 22 times. the last time that i recall was at a high school here in washington, d.c., which was only two or three weeks before he issued this policy of which was in september of 2014.

to grant a an unconstitutional legal status to the deferred action for childhood arrivals. now, it has been my position and conviction and belief that if we reward law breakers, we get more law breakers. and it was the conviction of president obama that he didn't have the constitutional authority to reward these law breakers, and in this lecture to the high school students shortly before he implemented this policy, president obama said, no, you're smart students, you will know that there are three branches of government. article 1 is the legislative branch. they pass the laws. article 2 is the executive heads that at the time. they enforce the laws. article 3 are the courts. and they interpret the laws. that's about as clear and concise as it gets.

and president obama was an adjunct profess who are taught constitutional law at the university of chicago. and i would take issue with some of his constitutional interpretations, but i would not take issue with that one. he was right. he had no constitutional authority to reward a de facto amnesty to people who attested they were brought into this country maybe against their will, without their knowledge, or too young to be held accountable, to reward them with a path to citizenship. that's what this ndaa legislation fails to do, is to strike out this language that was implemented by president obama in september of 2014, that rewards people who attest that they came into america illegally, committed the crime of unlawful entry into the united states. criminals who then stepped up into the military and applied to go into the military, took an oath to support and defend our constitution, after they broke our laws.

they had to lie to get into the military. so they committed the crime of unlawful entry, they lied to get into the military, and then they took an oath to support and defend the constitution. two of those three things are wrong at least. but did they mean it when they took the oath to support and defend the constitution? can you trust them if they violated our immigration laws and then lied about that in order to get into the military? and this president set about rewarding those kind of law breakers, those criminals, by granting them a path to citizenship because they signed up in the military. and i simply -- i simply offered an amendment at the rules committee to be able to debate this on the floor of the house of representatives so congress could bring its considered judgment. i have an oath that i have taken. and that's to support and defend the constitution of the united states too, mr. speaker. when i see a bill come before rewards n its face

law breakers under a policy that's a constitutional violation, one that secretary kelly said as recently as this morning he doesn't believe that the constitutionality of this can be upheld and he doesn't expect that the justice department is going to defend it, and he anticipates that there will be a suit that will be filed. and i'll tell you the specific date, september 5. that will, i believe, successfully litigate and put an end to this daca program. and this congress, every member of this united states congress has taken an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. every one. and i don't think there's a single one that stood there and had their fingers crossed behind their back as they took their oath and said, oh, unless i don't -- it makes me politically uncomfortable or unless i have some sympathy for the people that might be facing the enforcement of this supreme law of the land, the constitution of the united states. they don't get to hold or cross their fingers behind their back

and make an oath that they don't mean. so when we take this oath, all 435 of us in the house and 100 in the senate we better mean it. we better believe what we say because we tell our constituents, you send me to washington, d.c., send me to represent you in the united states congress. i will uphold the constitution. that's the number one duty, to uphold the constitution. it requires the president to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states and under the take care clause, take care that the laws are faithfully executed. doesn't mean kill off the law but enforce the law. the president has violated the constitution and now the rules committee denied the ability of the house of representatives to strike this out of the policy that exists under the authorization now of the

national defense authorization act. and they're asking me to vote for this bill even though it violates a principle that was encompassed in e's oath. not only do we put these members of congress up on a vote and challenge them afterwards as to whether they meant it, but we don't get to have a debate or a vote. here's the national defense authorization act already for final passage to come to the floor tomorrow with unconstitutional components encompassed within it. that is something president obama said 22 times is unconstitutional and we don't get a vote here on the house of representatives. that's amendment number one and it troubles me a lot. second, a simple amendment ensuring funds are not used to

u.a.c.'s unaccompanied alien children. when they come into the united states illegally, they are violating federal law and committing the crime of unlawful entry into the united states and up to a year in prison if we convict them. and we had a policy that existed under the barack obama administration to house them on our military bases. our military bases are for national security. they are not there to be baby sitting for children, they are under 18, they say, to house them on those bases to weaken our defense capability and interrupt the process of our military and that amendment, that amendment that needs to clean up another mistake of the obama administration, denied by the rules committee. we don't get to have a debate.

we could have an administration that continues the old process going of housing unaccompanied illegal aliens on the bases of america, consuming our military resources for something like that. and i disagree, i don't think they should be housed on our bases and we ought to be picking them up at the border and sending them back to the nation they came from. we should do it. and i'll stay on what is going on in europe, but they are being subsumed by idiotic immigration policies. and the other amendment denied by the rules committee, the executive order 672 that rohibits contractors and sub contractors from discriminating. common courtesy, how do you

discriminate against someone if you don't know what their sexual orientation and gender identity. that executive order needed to be rescinded. we don't get to vote on that either. and then this is the amendment i introduced one and vickie hartzler and i appreciate her bringing this from missouri, an amendment that was very similar to mine, my amendment ensured that no funds are used by the department of defense to force servicemen and women to undergo transgender courses or reassignment surgery. and i'll couple will it with the hartzler amendment and that is this, that the united states military should not be used as an experiment. it shouldn't be used to do social experiment agenda and yet

under the obama administration, not only did they decide to put an end to don't ask, don't tell, they set up an affirmative action program to promote people through the ranks who would assert their orientation to be different than heather sexual. and we -- heterosexual and then we got the orders from the department of defense through our secretary of defense that the american taxpayer -- let's say we borrow money from china and saudi arabia, to do sex reassignment surgery on people in our military? something that has never happened before without a vote or debate here on the floor of the house of representatives or in the senate, for that matter. not a policy that has been approved by america or americans

but a policy that was shoehorned into this by the former president of the united states and the former commander in chief, president obama. and i can't believe that president trump thinks it's a good idea to do sex reassignment surgery and while they recover from this surgery and they are going to make our nation stronger while we have military members on food stamps today. and thinking that it would somehow enhance our national security, sex aassignment surgery? i can't say that with a straight face and expect anybody in this country is going to believe it. so here we are, an america that is the unchallenged greatest nation in the world, significantly more powerful than

any other country in the world but also with responsibilities that expand beyond that of any other country in the world. and we would object cease ourselves with the idea that we are going to send an advertisement out to people all over america, which is -- it may be outside of america, but to come into the military, if you are contemplating sex reassignment surgery, come into the military and we'll pay for that surgery and have a whole lineup of people at walter reed r their sex reassignment surgery laying in hospital beds next to our honorable wounded who lost arms and legs, those who have sacrificed a great deal and we are going to divert the medical skill capabilities of

our military medical system that we have to sex reai signment surgery. i can't believe the pundits haven't unloaded on this. and we will be the laughing stock that the hartzler amendment failed on the floor of the house of representatives. it says to those who want to enter the military and contemplating sex reassignment surgery. they are saying this is gender reassignment surgery. well, you know, gender cannot be reassigned. that's in one's head. texas, south of the border, it's not gender reassignment. and we would take those resources we need to be using to take our combat wounded and those who are ill and sick and serving in our military and get them well with the best care we

can provide with them. the battles on the floor to try to get the v.a. up to speed and use those resources for sex reassignment surgery and the kind of medication that would make them physically more likely they say they are in their head. that's not a problem for the military to solve, mr. speaker. and i'm greatly troubled by the arrangement of the amendments, those that that were allowed, those that were denied. those -- and this amendment, the hartzler amendment that failed. can only think of the mash unit and i'll probably stop with that, mr. speaker and not go further into what images that brings to mind for me, but i saw there were 24 republicans that

voted against the hartzler amendment. it was greatly troubling to see that. every single democrat voted against the hartzler amendment. in the course here of 18-24 months this congress thinks they are reflecting the will of the american people. and not only have a social experiment, a transgender medical sex reassignment experiment going on in our military while we need to maintain ourselves as the strongest most military capable in the world. when you have people that can't get into the united states military for one reason, maybe they aren't a strong enough physical specimen and maybe they can't pass that physical test.

we saw former secretary of defense bob gates testified some years ago and he said obesity is a national security problem in the united states. that too many of our young people sit in front of the television or in front of their -box and eat yunching food and too heavy and any branch of the service. and that if we don't do something to control the diets of young people so they are not too fat to get into the military, he said it is a national security issue. and obesity in our young people is a threat to our national security. and yet, rather than focusing resources on getting these young people in shape, we would get out the scapell and do sexual reassignment surgery who probably sat next to those other youth in the high school classes and we would turn them into a woman or take a woman and

physically turn her into a man at their request because they say up here that's what i am. don't they know that when they sign up for the military. can't the military screen for that. they can screen for obesity and they can screen for intellect, for i. q. if they can screen for medical records and medical history, if they can screen for criminal activity or violations of the law. if they can say you don't get into the military because you don't meet our standards, if you are too short or physically unable like my uncle who was too short, all of those things from obesity to short to having flat feet to being cross eye eyed, whatever it might be, they can say no, you don't fit our standards. if you walk up there and say,

well, i think here i am a woman and i'm not a woman here, then we'll bring you in because you meet all other standards and we have the specialists up at walter reed and other facilities around america, we'll make you into whatever you want to be and somehow that strengthens america's national security and helps us fight our enemies? this is so utterly ludicrous for the united states military to be engaged in a diversion from defending our country and this congress turned down the hartzler amendment. at least the rules committee allowed it to be offered. and this is what we get. this kind of answer. every democrat says, this is ok, we want to do this, and it is important. and 24 republicans agreed with them? where is our country going? can't we focus on things that

are important? can't we focus on constitutional principles and vote down this daca thing that rewards law breakers and support the hartzler amendment and end this idea that we are going to do great middle and social experiments in the united states military and somehow out of that -- there is no way in the world it makes us stronger that we maintain our power when we become the laughing stock of the world. there was also an initiative that i had to fight about needless mondays in our military. recall a picture of the norwegian military. and they are seating there sandwiches and on .heir shoulders is a deer

we want to focus these resources on things that matter. and they will take an oath to support and defend the constitution when they sign up and commit themselves to the military. god bless them for doing it. i take it, too. 435 of us here did and 100 of the senate did. how many of us mean it? how many of us will take that stand and say, i will not vote for a piece of legislation that is unconstitutional because it violates my oath of office. and i'm not going to commit the resources of the taxpayers of the united states of america to do social and medical and pharmaceutical experiments on people who now would be attracted to come into the military for that purpose and be discharged out on the streets of america after having been reconstructed into a different kind of human being with a

different haircut. that can happen on their own and happen in civilian life. that is each person's choice, but it's not the duty of the united states military. . too many of our youth are too overweight to meet the standards, to get into boot camp. and my answer to that was, if it's a military national security issue, sign them up. put them in there. and they can stay in basic until they make weight. maybe add another two weeks or four weeks or six weeks to their training. you'll get them down to weight. you work them hard enough, you watch their diet, they'll get down to weight. it will be a good thing for them. not a national security issue. in my opinion for young people to be too many of them overweight and they can't qualify for the military. you work them hard enough, you feed them right, you keep them long enough, they'll make weight.

it's far wiser to do than that -- that than it is to do sex reassignment surgery and take somebody out of operations for of a year e days out in order to get to the recovery from this reconstructive surgery that's there. it's a redick -- it's a ridiculous thing that's happened in the united states congress today. it's disgraceful that a vote like that could take place and ma gentleman -- and majority of the people voting on the hartzler amendment would turn it down. when we have a country to save, a country to protect. so i suggest this, mr. speaker. if this ndaa bill fails tomorrow, it will come back again and it will come back again with the hartzler language in it. under a rule that will allow it to pass here on the floor of the house of representatives. democrats are not going to help us pass this bill. only a handful of them will do that. so republicans have to do the right thing. and we should stop dividing ourselves, we should stop letting america be embarrassed in front of the world for a ridiculous decision that was

made today. so i urge, i urge a correction to the ndaa. and i urge english to be adopted as the official language of the united states of america. because it unifies us and helps us communicate with each other, a common form of communicationses currency is the most powerful unifying force throughout the entire istory of the world. with that, mr. speaker, i would yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain a motion. from the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands