Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 85 (Friday, June 14, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 85 (Friday, June 14, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H3594-H3636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 0910
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). Pursuant to House Resolution
260 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 1960.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly resume the
chair.

{time} 0912

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014
for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren (Acting Chair) in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose Thursday, June
13, 2013, the seventh set of en bloc amendments offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) had been disposed of.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 18 will not be offered.

[[Page H3595]]

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mrs. Walorski

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13,
2013, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed in part B
of House Report 113-108.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 405, after line 9, insert the following:

SEC. 1040B. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS
DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO TO YEMEN.

None of the amounts authorized to be available to the
Department of Defense may be used to transfer, release, or
assist in the transfer or release, during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on
December 31, 2014, any individual detained at Guantanamo (as
such term is defined in section 1033(f)(2)) to the custody or
control of the Republic of Yemen or any entity within Yemen.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, in May, the President declared a renewed
intention to transfer detainees from Guantanamo ``to the greatest
extent possible.'' He also announced he was lifting his self-imposed
suspension on the transfers of detainees to Yemen.
This, I believe, is a dangerous policy. It is dangerous for our
troops fighting overseas. It is also dangerous for citizens living in
the homeland.
The amendment I am offering prohibits the Department of Defense from
transferring Gitmo detainees to Yemen for one year. In other words,
this amendment simply puts into the law the President's previous
judgment that transfers to Yemen should be suspended.
Those listening to the debate today might be asking: ``Why is this
prohibition needed?'' For starters, the Defense Department should not
transfer detainees to Yemen because they represent some of the most
dangerous terrorists known in the world.
It is important to note that these individuals are still in Gitmo
because even the Obama administration believes they are being legally
held. The Bush administration didn't feel comfortable transferring
these terrorists. After Yemen was the starting point for the foiled
airline bombing over Detroit, the Obama administration correctly
decided not to transfer these terrorists back to that troubled nation.
These individuals pose a real threat to the United States. Detainees
at Gitmo pose a real threat to our national security. Transfers to
Yemen should be prohibited because Yemen has become a hotbed for
terrorist activity. In fact, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--which
is widely believed to be the most lethal of all al Qaeda affiliates--is
based in Yemen.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified in 2011
that AQAP remains the affiliate most likely to conduct a transnational
attack. This is an organization with which we are at war, an
organization that is resolute on killing as many Americans as they can
if we don't stop them first.
It makes no sense to send terrorists to a country where there is an
active al Qaeda network that we know has been engaged in targeting the
U.S. The Christmas Day Detroit bombing attempt, the ink cartridge bomb
plot, and the radicalization of the Fort Hood shooter all can be traced
back to Yemen.
Let's look at the facts. We should not be in the business of sending
Gitmo detainees to Yemen because, one, they represent some of the most
dangerous terrorists in the world and, two, Yemen is home of the most
active al Qaeda affiliate, and lastly, because Yemen has a poor track
record of securing its prisons.
A Yemen citizen, the convicted mastermind of the USS Cole bombing who
took the lives of 17 American sailors, was being held by Yemeni
authorities when he escaped from prison in 2003. Luckily, he was
recaptured, but he was able to escape again from Yemeni custody in 2006
along with 22 other terrorists.
Why risk another jailbreak by people who intend to do us harm? This
is a commonsense amendment with the purpose of protecting Americans.
My amendment does not say the President can't transfer detainees
elsewhere. My amendment is only in effect for 1 year to give Yemen time
to demonstrate it can safely and securely handle Gitmo transfers.
Before taking additional steps, I also believe it is prudent that
Congress receive the Department of Defense's report on factors that
contribute to re-engagement so that informed choices about future
transfers can be made. This report is mandated by law, and it is
currently overdue.
In closing, I want to share a statistic from the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence. In 2012, ODNI reported that the
combined suspected and confirmed re-engagement rate of former Gitmo
detainees has risen to an alarming 27.9 percent. When I speak with
constituents--moms and dads--back home who ask me how safe we really
are, this rate of re-engagement comes to mind.
I ask my colleagues to consider the national security implications of
transferring detainees to Yemen, and join me in support of my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to
the amendment.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The 56 inmates that we are talking about at Guantanamo are not the
most dangerous terrorists in the world. In fact, the intel community
and the Department of Defense determined they were acceptable risks for
release back to Yemen, back to their home country. Not everybody that
we rounded up and took to Guantanamo, unfortunately, turned out to be
the very, very dangerous terrorists that we thought they were.
The problem we confront with these 56 that we've determined are not a
grave threat to the country, determining that if there is any minimal
threat whatsoever we are simply going to hold them forever is, well,
quite frankly, un-American. That is contrary to our values, to say that
we are going to hold somebody indefinitely--I gather forever--because
we think there might possibly be some risk. That's not the way the
Constitution is supposed to work.
More than anything, this amendment restricts the President's
flexibility. If the President determines that this is safe, if the
intelligence community determines this is safe, if the Defense
Department determines this is safe, they ought to have that option.
This amendment takes that option away and, once again, makes Gitmo the
classic Hotel California: ``You can check in any time you want, but you
can never leave.''
We cannot warehouse people forever. We need to give the President
options, not restrict them.
There are certification requirements that will always be in place to
make sure that the Secretary of Defense, before releasing these people,
certifies that he believes it is an acceptable risk. We will have to
have that. But I think an absolute prohibition ties the hands of the
President in an unhelpful way.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
Mr. COTTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from Indiana
for her effort on this very important amendment. For 4-plus years, the
Obama administration has declined to transfer these terrorists at
Guantanamo to Yemen. I would suggest that nothing has changed, if you
look at the facts of the matter.

{time} 0920

Yemen remains a partner in our war on terror, but it still has weak
capabilities. It still has not yet demonstrated the ability to house
such terrorists or to deter terrorist activity in its own quarters as
we've seen from things like the underwear bombing plot or the Fort Hood
massacre. If we transfer these terrorists to Yemen, we cannot know for
sure that it will not mean more attacks on our soldiers in Afghanistan,
on our Ambassadors at our Embassies around the world, on our citizens
around the world, here in the United States, or in allied countries.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
temporary and

[[Page H3596]]

restrained amendment to ensure that terrorists at Guantanamo Bay do not
escape back onto the battlefronts of the war on terror.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
There is more agreement here than meets the eye. I think everyone in
this Chamber agrees that no person who is a dangerous threat to the
people of the United States should be released. I think most people in
this Chamber agree that, if the Government of Yemen is unprepared to
effectuate adequate security means, then no person should be released
to Yemen.
The question here is who gets to make that decision. In this
instance, the people who know the most about this--the leaders of our
intelligence community, of our military, of our law enforcement
community--have reviewed the specific details of 56 cases, and they
have concluded based upon their review of those details that the right
thing to do is to release these detainees to Yemen if and when they are
satisfied that Yemen's security measures are appropriate.
The question here really comes down to whether this judgment should
be made by the Members of this body, who have varying degrees of
knowledge about this issue--including the gentlelady, who has very
diligently learned a lot about this issue and cares a lot about it--or
whether the decision should be made by people whom we have entrusted
with the defense of our country, who have developed specific, granular,
factual expertise about this question. I believe this is a case where
the proper decision belongs with those experts, where the proper
decision belongs with those who know the most about this matter.
Rigidly limiting the options of those experts is a mistake.
So, although I believe we share the same intentions here, we don't
share the same view of this amendment. I believe that the decision
should be made by those best positioned to make it. If and when they
determine that security conditions in Yemen are appropriate, then the
decision to release should be made. In my view, that's the right
process. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time just
to say that I completely agree with the arguments of the gentleman from
New Jersey.
It's not a question of whether or not these people should be
released. It's a question of who should make that decision. Should
Congress make that decision and restrict the President? restrict the
intelligence community? restrict the Department of Defense? As the
gentleman from Arkansas pointed out, Yemen has been a very capable and
helpful partner in the war against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
I believe these decisions are best left to the experts and not to
have Congress restrict them and limit their options. With that, I urge
opposition to the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Indiana
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13,
2013, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed in part B
of House Report 113-108.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike sections 1032, 1033, and 1034.
Page 399, line 9, strike ``120 days'' and insert ``60
days''.
Page 402, lines 6 through 7, strike ``90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense''
and insert ``30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the President''.
Page 402, lines 8 through 9, strike ``of the Department of
Defense''.
Page 402, line 10, after ``principal responsibility''
insert the following: ``, in consultation with the Secretary
of Defense, the Attorney General, and the intelligence
community (under the meaning given such term section 3(4) of
the National Security 18 Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4)),''.
Page 402, line 12, after ``Cuba'' insert the following: ``,
and the closure of the detention facility at such Naval
Station''.
Page 402, line 14, after ``transfers'' insert the
following: ``and such closure''.
Page 403, line 5, strike ``120 days'' and insert ``60
days''.
Page 403, line 20, strike ``120 days'' and insert ``60
days''.
Page 404, line 24, strike ``90 days'' and insert ``60
days''.
Page 405, after line 9, insert the following:

SEC. 1040B. GUANTANAMO BAY DETENTION FACILITY CLOSURE ACT OF
2013.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Closure Act of 2013''.
(b) Use of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act or
otherwise made available to the Department of Defense may be
used to--
(1) construct or modify any facility in the United States,
its territories, or possessions to house any individual
detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or
imprisonment;
(2) transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release
to or within the United States, its territories, or
possessions an individual detained at Guantanamo; or
(3) transfer an individual detained at Guantanamo to the
custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any
other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(c) Notice to Congress.--Not later than 30 days before
transferring any individual detained at Guantanamo to the
United States, its territories, or possessions, or to a
foreign country or entity, the President shall submit to
Congress a report about such individual that includes--
(1) notice of the proposed transfer; and
(2) the assessment of the Secretary of Defense and the
intelligence community (under the meaning given such term
section 3(4) of the National Security 18 Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 3003(4)) of available evidence relating to the threat
posed by the individual, any security concerns about the
individual, the likelihood that the individual will engage in
recidivism, and humanitarian concerns about the individual,
including--
(A) the likelihood the detainee will resume terrorist
activity if transferred or released;
(B) the likelihood the detainee will reestablish ties with
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition
partners if transferred or released;
(C) the likelihood of family, tribal, or government
rehabilitation or support for the detainee if transferred or
released;
(D) the likelihood the detainee may be subject to trial by
military commission; and
(E) any law enforcement interest in the detainee.
(d) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--No amounts authorized to
be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department
of Defense may be used after December 31, 2014, for the
detention facility or detention operations at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(e) Periodic Review Boards.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that each periodic review board established pursuant
to Executive Order No. 13567 or section 1023 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law
112-81; 125 Stat. 1564; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) is completed by
not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(f) Individual Detained at Guantanamo.--In this section,
the term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' means any
individual located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is--
(A) in the custody or under the control of the Department
of Defense; or
(B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In section 2901, strike subsections (a), (b), and (c).
Page 646, lines 11 and 12, strike ``120 days'' and insert
``60 days''.
Page 648, after line 5, insert the following:
(F) The estimated security costs associated with trying
such individuals in courts established under Article III of
the Constitution or in military commissions conducted in the
United States, including the costs of military personnel,
civilian personnel, and contractors associated with the
prosecution at such location, including any costs likely to
be incurred by other Federal departments or agencies, or
State or local governments.
(G) A plan developed by the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads
of other relevant departments and agencies,

[[Page H3597]]

identifying a disposition, other than continued detention at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for each
individual detained at such Naval Station as of the date of
the enactment of this Act who is designated for prosecution.
Such a disposition may include transfer to the United States
for trial or detention pursuant to the law of war, transfer
to a foreign country for prosecution, or release.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself 3 minutes.
This is a very straightforward amendment that simply asks the
President to put together a plan to close Guantanamo Bay.
One of the complaints in recent weeks is that we've seen Guantanamo
become more and more untenable. It continues to be an international
eyesore. Way back in 2007, President George W. Bush said it should be
closed. Then-candidate John McCain said it should be closed. As
recently as last week, Senator McCain and some other Senators went down
and reached that conclusion as well. I think a justifiable criticism of
that has come from the other side of the aisle that said, well, you
can't close it unless you've got a plan for what to do with the inmates
and a plan for how to close it, and that is exactly what this amendment
does.
It requires the President within 60 days to come up with a plan for
closing Guantanamo Bay prison, and then it also removes all of the
restrictions that are in this bill that would stop him from generating
that plan.
The bottom line is that we do not need Guantanamo. Guantanamo was set
up in the first place in the hopes that, because it wasn't actually on
American soil, we could somehow hold people outside the normal bounds
of due process and the Constitution, but the Court ruled otherwise. The
Court ruled that habeas does apply because Guantanamo is effectively
under the control of the United States. So there is no benefit there.
There are no greater rights in the U.S. than there are in Guantanamo.
We just continue to have this prison that has been set up in a way that
the international community cannot stand, and it makes a problem for us
in terms of being able to cooperate with our allies and to have the
ability to get that cooperation to properly prosecute the war on
terror.
So I am simply asking that we put a plan in place so that we can
close Guantanamo Bay once and for all--something that Republicans and
Democrats alike have said that they've wanted to do. We simply haven't
taken the steps necessary.
The prison is becoming very, very expensive. There is $250 million in
MilCon contained in this bill just to keep it at a somewhat temporary
status. Beyond that, the prospect of the United States' simply
warehousing 166 people forever with no end in sight is contrary, again,
I think, to our values and to our process.
I really want to emphasize the fact that we have here in the United
States well over 300 terrorists incarcerated. There is a notion that
somehow we couldn't possibly accommodate them here because of the
threat, but we have Ramzi Yousef, and we have the Blind Sheikh. We have
some of the most notorious terrorists in the world housed here already
safely and securely. That is simply not an argument against doing this.
The temporary facilities down at Guantanamo are not sustainable.
Now, I'm not going to rush this and say we've got to close it
tomorrow if we don't have a plan. I'm simply requiring the President to
come up with that plan, and then am giving him the legislative freedom
to develop that plan as what we've done in this bill far too often is
to have restricted that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the
chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, on May 28, 2010, I stood on this floor and
made a motion that effectively stopped some of the worst terrorists in
the world at Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to the soil in the
United States. At that particular point in time, the then-chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, Democrat Ike Skelton, stood on the floor
and said this:

We are in a position to accept this motion. I just wish to
point out that there is no difference between the Democrats
and Republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Today, we step on a course with this amendment to change that as the
highest ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee seeks to
overturn, essentially, that motion.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman were asking that these terrorists be
brought to his district, that would be one thing, but he knows that's
very unlikely. What you're having with this motion is very generously
saying that they could be brought to any of our districts. We are
hearing a uniform chorus stand up from North Carolina, Virginia, Guam,
and every other place, saying, Don't bring them to my district.
The reason is they know two things: they know the moment they touch
U.S. soil they will receive additional constitutional rights that no
one in this room can argue what they are exactly; secondly, they have
placed a target on every elementary school, on every shopping mall, on
every small business in that district by other terrorists.

{time} 0930

That's why, Mr. Chairman, it's important that we come together
unified and send a message to the President that we might not be able
to stop every terrorist from coming to U.S. soil, but we can stop these
terrorists by defeating this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Moran-Nadler amendment,
which provides a six-part plan for closing Gitmo.
The amendment will remove the existing limitations on transfers,
strike the current requests for construction at Gitmo, and end funding
for the facility on December 31, 2014.
The time to close Guantanamo is now. It is a stain on our national
honor. We are holding 166 people at Gitmo, 86 of whom have been cleared
for release, that is to say they have been found guilty of nothing and
judged not to pose any danger. There is no reason and no right for us
to hold them further.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder which of our colleagues doesn't believe in the
American system of justice. I wonder which one of us does not trust our
own American court. I wonder who among us does not believe in the Bill
of Rights, who does not believe in the right to counsel or that people
should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. What we have at Gitmo
is a system that is an affront to those beliefs and to America.
In the last decade, we have begun to let go of our freedoms bit by
bit with each new executive order, each new court decision and, yes,
each new act of Congress. We have begun giving away our rights to
privacy, a right to our day in court when the government harms us; and
with this legislation, we are continuing down the path of destroying
the right to be free from imprisonment without due process of law.
I want to commend the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman
from Virginia for fighting to close the detention facility at
Guantanamo.
The language in this bill without our amendment prohibits moving any
detainees into the United States and guarantees that we will continue
holding people indefinitely, people who are not necessarily terrorists
and who we only suspect to be terrorists and have not had a day in
court to prove they are or are not terrorists. We will continue to hold
them indefinitely without charge, contrary to every tradition this
country stands for, contrary to due process and civil rights.
Because of this momentous challenge to the founding principles of the
United States, that no person may be deprived of liberty without due
process of law--and certainly not indefinitely without due process of
law--we must close the detention facilitate at Gitmo now in order to
restore our national honor.

[[Page H3598]]

They will have no additional constitutional rights. The Supreme Court
ruled that they have the same constitutional rights at Guantanamo as
they do here.
We must close this facility and restore our national honor. Support
this amendment.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Dr. Wenstrup.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was
established to hold unlawful enemy combatants captured during the war
on terror.
Any proposal to close the Guantanamo detention facility must first
clearly address the transfer of remaining prisoners detained there.
Many of the remaining detainees are the most hardened terrorists,
including those responsible for the 9/11 mass murders of many
Americans.
There are three primary options: transfer to another country or
transfer to the United States or stay put.
Transferring these terrorists to another country comes with a
substantial risk of reengaging as an American threat. The current
reengagement rate of former Guantanamo detainees is nearly 28 percent.
I served for 1 year in Iraq with the Army as a medical officer at one
of the largest detention facilities there. Often after prison release
deals made by entrusted decisionmakers, we saw the same people return
for new offenses. Additionally, there were multiple escapes and
attempted escapes, as well as attacks trying to free the detainees.
I've been to Guantanamo, and the facilities there are a safe and
secure location away from our soldiers on the battlefield. I don't
think there are many people in Cuba that are trying to free the people
that are held at Guantanamo, and this was not the case in Iraq, and it
may not be the case should they be transferred to the United States.
I believe the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are being treated
appropriately and in a way that we can be proud of as a Nation. The
hunger strike policy is carried out humanely with the detainees treated
as patients. The access to caregivers and medical facilities is the
same for our troops as it is for those detained.
Additionally, transfers to the United States would be very expensive.
We've already built a courtroom there that cost us in the millions of
dollars.
These terrorist detainees pose a very real danger to our security in
America. They mean us real harm. The President has the ability to
certify transfers of detainees to other countries, but he has yet to do
so. And until the President leads with a better solution, I firmly
believe that keeping Guantanamo open is our best option, our safest
option, and our most logical option.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
First, let me say that I think we all agree that our servicemembers
who served us at Guantanamo have done a tremendous job and have brought
great honor to our country. We thank and respect all of them.
I also believe that there is unanimity here that if someone is a
credible threat to the United States, they should be detained, tried,
and brought to justice. The question is where to do that.
Why should it be Guantanamo? Do defendants have greater rights if
they are transferred from Guantanamo to a place in the United States?
The Supreme Court has said, no, they don't. So there's no tactical
advantage in a trial.
Are they more likely to escape if they're transferred to the United
States? History says ``no.'' The number of escapes from maximum
prisons, the supermax prisons, in the United States has been zero.
Is it less expensive to hold them at Guantanamo? Most certainly not.
The average cost of incarcerating someone in a Federal maximum security
supermax prison is $34,000 a year. The cost to the taxpayer of
incarcerating someone at Guantanamo is over $1.6 million a year.
Is there some strategic advantage globally to holding these detainees
at Guantanamo? The opposite is true. General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen,
other leaders of our intelligence and military forces have said that
Guantanamo is the best recruiting device against the United States,
around the world for those who are trying to sell the lie that the
United States is an inhumane and unjust place.
There is simply no rationale for an indefinite extension of the
problem at Guantanamo. For reasons of security, for reasons of law, for
reasons of cost, for reasons of strategic advantage, we should close
Guantanamo Bay. That's why I support the Smith amendment.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
Mr. COTTON. I oppose this amendment. I oppose the closure of
Guantanamo and the transfer of detainees to the United States.
Guantanamo is a state-of-the-art detention facility in which we've
invested millions of dollars in which our troops handle themselves with
utmost professionalism.
The detainees there have access to military tribunals and habeas
corpus proceedings here in Washington, D.C.
Who are these detainees? They're not innocent goat herders swept up
by a marauding United States military of which I was a part in which I
detained numerous potential terrorists. They are people like Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11; Mohammed al-Qahtani, one of
the would-be participants in 9/11; terrorists who are closely
associated with Osama bin Laden who have received explosives training,
who are recruiters, who are poison experts, who are suicide bombers or
who are commanders of al Qaeda training camps. I do not think we should
bring them to the United States, give them their Miranda warnings, give
them an attorney at taxpayer-provided expense and if acquitted and not
accepted by their home countries be released back onto the streets of
the United States.
If that is what the advocates of this amendment would like, I suggest
they should write their amendment in a fashion that would bring these
detainees to their own congressional districts.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, you can pretty much win any battle you want
to fight with superior military might. But for wars of consequence, you
have to be fighting from the high ground consistently. That's what this
amendment is all about.
We will win this war against violent extremism; but in order to do
so, we have to win over the hearts and the minds of hundreds of
millions of Muslims around the world who want what we have. They want
equal justice under the law. They want fairness and truth and
transparency and democracy.
The vast majority are young, idealistic, and very impressionable;
and, unfortunately, too many of them are misled and manipulated.

{time} 0940

We have a superior set of values and principles. It's what defines us
as a Nation. But we have to hold steadfast to those values and
principles. We have to show that even when we are challenged, even when
it's politically difficult, we believe in equal justice under the law.
We believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. We believe
that every life matters. We believe in human rights, we don't believe
in torture. But we do believe in our justice system. It's not our
justice system that's operational at Guantanamo. It was set up there to
be outside our justice system so we could detain people indefinitely.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. MORAN. At this time in our history when we're furloughing 650,000
Department of Defense employees, how can we justify spending $1.5
million per detainee at Guantanamo when half of them have been cleared
for release? It doesn't make sense. And now in this bill we're
authorizing another quarter of a billion dollars to be spent at
Guantanamo. Those are misguided priorities. It costs $34,000 to jail
very dangerous terrorists in this country, but in this country, we can
convict them.

[[Page H3599]]

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
There are a few facts that I think are appropriate to bring to this
debate. I oppose this amendment vigorously. Just 2 weeks ago I was down
at Guantanamo Bay on a trip that was part of the House Select Committee
on Intelligence. I will tell you that the soldiers and marines and
airmen of Joint Task Force Gitmo are taking tremendous care of the
facilities, our assets and the detainees.
Those who suggest that this facility should go away will create a
problem that is worse than the one that we have today. This amendment
is simply a pattern of appeasement that does not comport with the fact
that radical Islamic terrorists will not cease to attack us simply
because we wish they would go away.
A few more facts. If we close Guantanamo Bay, we try to release them
to countries that will accept them, we know that at least a quarter of
them will return to the battlefield. We could bring them back to the
United States, where they'd go to civilian courts, and undoubtedly some
of them would end up walking the streets of the United States.
One of the final facts, and one that I've heard said in support of
this amendment, is that if we simply close this facility that
recruiting for radical extremists will diminish. This seems illogical.
There's no support for such a statement. They will continue to attack
us whether we keep this open or closed. This facility is legal, it's
just, and it is an important national asset.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
A whole bunch of false arguments are being laid out here. As has been
clear, no greater constitutional rights come to people in the United
States than at Guantanamo. So that's just a phony argument.
The second phony argument is that somehow they can't be held safely.
I have a Federal prison in my district. I have an INS detention
facility in my district. Frankly, if there was a supermax facility in
my district, I would not have a problem with them coming to that
district. They should be held. I would hope that all of our supermax
facilities, which are holding very, very dangerous people, they better
be holding them securely right now.
It's $1.5 million a year versus $34,000. It is an absolute
recruitment tool for al Qaeda. Our military leaders--General Petraeus--
have all said that this is something that is harmful to U.S. security.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Thornberry), the vice chairman of the HASC Committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, cost is a red herring argument here.
Does it cost more to keep a detainee in Guantanamo than a Federal
prisoner here? Probably, but nothing like the figures that have been
repeatedly cited on the other side. For example, if you look back at
the fiscal year '11 Department of Justice budget request for moving the
detainees to the U.S., it ends up in the first year being about $1.9
million per detainee, and about $500,000 per detainee in recurring
costs.
On the other side of it, even the President, in a speech at the
National Defense University, said it is less than a million dollars per
prisoner now on detainee. Is there a difference? Sure. Is it anything
like what we've been hearing? No.
And the rest of the story is: under the Geneva Convention, if you're
holding somebody under the laws of war, you cannot put them with
Federal prisoners even in a supermax prison. They have to be
segregated. So those costs of bringing them here are higher.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is what is the best
thing to do to secure the country and to deal with the terrorist
threat. And I just remind everybody, the ban on closing Guantanamo is
not permanent. We have to reapprove it every year. So if the President
actually comes up with a real plan, not just a speech, but a real plan
to close Guantanamo and then deal with the detainees, then that ban can
go away. But you can't say okay, we're going to remove all of the
restrictions and we're going to close Guantanamo, and then we're going
to figure out what we're going to do with these people, and that's
exactly what this amendment does. The gentleman from Washington says it
just asks for a plan. The underlying bill just asks for a plan. His
amendment, in addition to asking for a plan, removes all of the
existing restrictions. And on page 4, subsection (D), says
specifically:
No funds shall be used there to detain people after December 31,
2014.
We've got to get the plan first before it closes. I think this
amendment should be rejected.
Mr. McKEON. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I strongly oppose this amendment. Two-and-a-half years ago I sent the
President a letter about these important issues. I said in that letter:

I fully recognize the importance of crafting a careful and
comprehensive framework for the detention of terrorists who
wish to harm the United States. I also recognize the
challenges and legal complexities related to such an
endeavor. This appreciation is why this issue is simply too
important for the administration to address on its own.

The President did not take up my offer at that time. Nearly a year
later in another unanswered letter, I wrote:

While I remain open to working together, I am very
disappointed that the administration has frequently shown a
greater willingness to engage with international
institutions, foreign governments, and the media on issues
relating to our national security than it has with the U.S.
House of Representatives.

Those are excerpts from two of the five letters that I've written to
the President on this issue, which he has not answered. Yet, he still
has not come forward with a proposal of oversight or any plan. What to
do with Guantanamo is secondary to the President coming forward with a
comprehensive plan. Such a plan must include what he proposes to do
with those terrorist detainees who are too dangerous to release but
cannot be tried.
Number two, how he will ensure terrorists transferred overseas do not
return to the fight?
Three, what he will do with the terrorists we capture in the future;
specifically, how will he prioritize intelligence questioning?
Finally, what he will do with the high-value terrorists still held in
Afghanistan? This is a particularly critical priority for me. There are
several extremely dangerous individuals still in custody in
Afghanistan. The only option that I see, as completely unacceptable for
those detainees, is to allow their release. We've already seen the
outcome of making this tragic mistake in Iraq.
While I appreciate the proposed efficiency of my friend and
colleague, Ranking Member Smith's amendment, we cannot strike all
prohibitions on transfers of Gitmo detainees, agree to bring them to
the United States, release them overseas, and end all funding for Gitmo
with absolutely any confidence that any of this will be handled in a
way that best protects our national security.
Lastly, and this is important, I want to say that I'm proud of the
men and women in uniform who serve our Nation every day at Guantanamo.
It's not an easy duty. We owed them a debt of gratitude for their
critical service to this Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
will be postponed.

{time} 0950

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Polis

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13,
2013, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in part B
of House Report 113-108.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H3600]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle A of title V, add the following new
section:

SEC. 502. EXPANSION OF CHAPLAIN CORPS.

The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the appointment,
as officers in the Chaplain Corps of the Armed Forces, of
persons who are certified or ordained by non-theistic
organizations and institutions, such as humanist, ethical
culturalist, or atheist.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, it's a very simple amendment. We, through
our Chaplaincy Corps, need to support, and do support, various faith
and philosophical beliefs among the men and women who bravely serve our
country.
We already support some nontheistic beliefs. For instance, we have
Buddhist chaplains. Buddhism is a nontheistic faith tradition.
And what my amendment would simply do is allow chaplains who are
certified or ordained as secular humanists and ethical culturists or
atheists to also be able to support the brave American and women who
serve in our military.
Roughly 23 percent of the men and women in our Armed Forces either
have no religion, or are atheists; but there are no chaplains that
currently are able to represent this important and growing demographic.
Under current law, the Armed Forces only allow chaplains who are
granted an endorsement by an approved religious organization and have
received a graduate degree in theological or religious studies,
precluding many of the seminaries and other institutions that can
provide certification to nonreligious chaplains that could provide
much-needed services, particularly to the roughly quarter of our
servicemembers who have stated that they have no religious beliefs or
are atheists.
There's no reason why the only faith tradition and philosophical
tradition in our military without chaplains does not have any kind of
support to address their health concerns.
Now, I've heard some say that, well, all members of our military,
even those who are non-observers, are able to see psychiatrists or
counselors for support. But that's a very different need than the
spiritual needs and the philosophical needs that people have.
First of all, when someone sees a psychiatrist or counselor, it has a
certain stigma that can be attached to it that doesn't exist when
you're seeing a chaplain. It also doesn't enjoy the same
confidentiality that a chaplain visit does, and the information
discussed with a therapist can actually have an impact on the chain of
command in terms of negatively impacting the servicemember's future
military career.
So, again, the groundwork has already been laid with regard to
nontheistic faiths like Buddhism, where we have active chaplains in our
military. Many universities already have secular humanist chaplains,
these including American University here in Washington, D.C. Other
militaries have this as well. Our allied militaries in Belgium and the
Netherlands have humanist chaplaincies.
And, again, it's a very simple concept and, I think, something that
is long overdue to ensure that all members of the military, regardless
of their faith background, whether they're believers or not, whatever
their philosophy is in life, they have access to the chaplaincy to
support their spiritual needs. And, of course, nonbelievers have
spiritual needs just as believers do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Dr. Fleming).
Mr. FLEMING. I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak on
this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, let's examine what a chaplain really is. A chaplain is
a person who is a minister of the faith, someone who ministers on the
basis of a belief in a deity, a higher power, who is associated with or
attached to a secular organization.
An example, right here in this House, each morning begins, each
legislative day, begins with a prayer from our chaplain.
Back home, the hospital that I'm associated with, Mennen Medical
Center, my good friend, a Baptist pastor, is chaplain of our hospital.
And so this goes to the core of the discussion.
A chaplain is a person who is a man or woman of the faith, of
conscience, of spirituality, who ministers to those with respect to a
secular organization.
I just heard the gentleman say that, well, we need atheist
chaplains--which, to me, is an oxymoron--we need atheist chaplains to
minister to the spiritual needs of soldiers.
Well, by definition, as an atheist, he doesn't or she doesn't believe
in a spiritual world. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, the courts have affirmed that chaplains are mandated by
the Constitution to enable military personnel to exercise faith
according to their conscience. Nontheistic chaplains, by definition,
cannot assist others in worship.
For any concerns my colleague from Colorado may have as to the
nonspiritual needs of servicemen and -women who do not hold any sort of
faith, I would submit that the military has resources readily
available. Counselors, psychologists, and social workers are happy to
meet those needs.
I would also note that current chaplains will serve with respect to
any servicemember, religious, nonreligious, nontheistic, atheistic or
agnostic alike who comes to them, providing these brave men and women
with any resources they might need in their service to the Nation. So
we have chaplains and secular advisers who can help anybody who claims
to be or wants to be an atheist.
Chaplains come to the military via the Department of Defense-
recognized faith groups, very important. Faith groups. It would be
impossible for an individual who does not belong to any faith group to
receive an endorsement, much in the same way that atheists have long
insisted that they are not, in fact, a faith group and would thus be
implausible that they would serve as a chaplain in the military.
Mr. Chairman, General George Washington founded our Chaplain Corps on
July 29, 1775, to make sure that the Continental Army could have
worship services.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. FLEMING. Just in summary, I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman.
The saddest thing I could ever imagine is someone standing over a dying
man or woman from combat and saying to them, there is no hope. If you
die, there is no world, there is no life thereafter. That is the
saddest thing I could ever imagine.
Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I yield myself 15 seconds just to
say I think we're seeing a double standard here where, if it's a person
of particular faith, as perhaps the gentleman approves of, then you
say, oh, you go see a chaplain for your needs. However, if you're of no
faith, you have to see a psychiatrist.
All of our men and women who bravely serve us deserve the same
support.
I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Nothing in this amendment in any way impairs the relationship between
a Christian or Jewish or other soldier or servicemember and his or her
faith leader. Nothing. Nothing in this amendment impairs the operation
of the Chaplain Corps.
What this amendment does is to show respect for the choices made by
our servicemembers. My Christianity is an important part of who I am
and how I see my life. I don't think that that same right should be
denied to a servicemember who does not share my beliefs.
What this amendment says is that, for the thousands of servicemembers
who choose a humanist or atheistic philosophy system of life, that they

[[Page H3601]]

should be able to confide in an adviser who is not a mental health
professional.
Going to a mental health professional is a choice that's laden with
risk and some controversy for a member of the service. Going to a faith
adviser is not.
Depriving those who share the views that Mr. Polis outlined of the
chance to go to such an adviser is unequal treatment. It's unworthy of
the way we operate.
Nothing in this amendment disrupts the Chaplain Corps, but everything
in this amendment respects the rights of our servicemembers. I would
urge a ``yes'' vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my good friend.

{time} 1000

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to
visit here today.
First, I'd like to visit about two heroes in the history of our
country. One would be Father Emil Kapaun. I had the honor of being at
the White House a couple of months ago where he was awarded the
Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery in action of ministering
to the needs of not only men and women of faith, but those who claim to
have no faith.
In addition, I have the honor of being the nephew of a 95-year-old
Army chaplain who also has been honored for serving, ministering to the
needs of men and women in uniform.
One thing I will want to note is, instead of being dismissive of
those types of sacrifices, I will read a little bit from the duties of
the Chaplain Corps: ``Each chaplain shall hold appropriate religious
services at least once on each Sunday.'' Or the Navy and Marines say:
``An officer in the Chaplain Corps may conduct public worship according
to the manner and forms of the church of which he is a member'' and
``shall cause divine service to be performed on Sunday.'' It goes on
and on. Obviously, that's our understanding of the chaplaincy.
Madam Chair, how is it that one can hold a religious service for an
organization, as the amendment puts it, that does not consider itself
to be a religion? It's completely contrary to the directions,
instructions, and the very definition of the Chaplain Corps,
represented by Father Emil Kapaun and numerous others, to extend
appointments to groups in manners suggested by this amendment.
When you take away the worship, the prayer, everything that makes a
religious service religious, you are left with counselors, as has been
indicated. There are humanist, atheist, and ethical culturalist
counselors available to folks that serve our country. In addition, I'm
certain every chaplain that serves our brave men and women are
available for those who do not share their faith, and that's the case.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and be very
supportive of our current brave men and women who serve alongside our
members of the Armed Forces.
Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The question is on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Polis

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13,
2013, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 printed in part B
of House Report 113-108.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 79, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. 241. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN
GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SYSTEM PURPOSES.

(a) Limitation.--
(1) In general.--None of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2014 for the purposes described in paragraph (2)
shall be obligated or expended until the Secretary of
Defense--
(A) certifies to the congressional defense committees
that--
(i) the ground-based midcourse defense system has performed
at least two successful intercept tests at Vandenberg Air
Force Base, California, before October 1, 2014; and
(ii) the Commander of the United States Northern Command
has full confidence in the homeland missile defense system;
and
(B) submits to such committees justification with respect
to the national security requirement for expanding the
ground-based missile defense site located at Fort Greely,
Alaska, from 30 ground-based interceptors to 44 ground-based
interceptors.
(2) Purposes described.--The purposes described in this
paragraph are the following:
(A) Advance procurement of 14 ground-based interceptor
rocket motor sets.
(B) The missile refurbishment project at Missile Field 1 at
Fort Greely, Alaska.
(C) The mechanical-electrical building at such Missile
Field.
(b) Annual Certifications.--The Secretary shall annually
submit to the congressional defense committees a
certification of whether--
(1) the ground-based midcourse defense system has performed
at least two successful intercept tests at Vandenberg Air
Force Base, California; and
(2) the Commander of the United States Northern Command has
full confidence in the homeland missile defense system.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment to reduce
funding for the advanced procurement of 14 Ground-Based Interceptor
missiles that simply don't work and are inefficient, and for the
refurbishment of the costly Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely, Alaska,
until the Department of Defense can certify to Congress that these
programs have been adequately tested and work. It's simply a question
of making sure that something works before we spend additional money on
it.
The missile defense program was designed to intercept limited
intermediate and long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles before
they re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. But Congress needs to ensure that
these missiles are effective before we continue to provide the
Department of Defense with a blank check.
Congress needs to verify every penny of taxpayer money we spend. We
have a time of tradeoffs, and of course it's nice to be able to support
every program, but during this time of deficits and sequestration we
need to make sure we are vigilant to ensure that the money we spend on
the Pentagon actually results in the maximum amount of heightened
national security.
Since 1997, this weapons system has missed its target more than half
the time. My amendment would limit the funding for the procurement of
14 Ground-Based Interceptors until the missiles have had two successful
tests before 2015. Very reasonable. If it doesn't have two successful
tests, why are we investing enormous amounts of taxpayer money in it?
So, two successful tests before 2015, certified by the Secretary of
Defense to Congress as having the full confidence of the Commander of
the United States Northern Command, and then it is allowed to move
forward.
Now, opponents of this amendment--and I saw a Dear Colleague letter
go out talking about how there are long-range missile threats from
North Korea and Iran--there's no question, there is complete agreement
about the dangers to this country, the dangers of a nuclear Iran, the
dangers of a nuclear North Korea. What we're talking about here is the
last thing we want to do is trust in an untested and unsuccessful
missile to deter very real threats. We need a real threat deterrent
system, not something that doesn't work. And my amendment simply
requires that this is working.
My amendment would also limit funds for the missile refurbishment
project in Missile Field 1 in Alaska. This field was never intended to
be

[[Page H3602]]

operational. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Joint
Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen in 2011 said:

Missile Field 1 was originally designed as a test bed, so
it lacks required hardening and redundant power, and has
significant infrastructure reliability issues.

There have also been reports of mold and leaks at the facility, and
refurbishment would come at a tremendous cost to taxpayers without
significantly improving the security that America has.
I urge Congress to demand that these programs work, that the programs
we fund actually keep our families safe and are proven to work by
certification by the Secretary of Defense.
We need to get our fiscal house in order, we need to make tough
choices, and we need to make sure that our expenditures on national
defense improve national security. And simply demanding that our costly
missile defense system is actually capable of keeping our homeland safe
is a very reasonable amendment to the National Defense Authorization
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my friend
and colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman of the full committee.
I would urge defeat of this amendment. It would reverse what the
Obama administration and Secretary of Defense Hagel came forward with
on March 15 of this year. After seeing the North Korean threat only
increase, they appropriately came to the decision to add more Ground-
Based Interceptors.
Now, I believe the administration has been too slow to appropriately
address the threats we have from in-coming missiles, but this is a good
step forward, and so I applaud that.
The Secretary said:

We will take steps in the United States to stay ahead of
the challenge posed by Iran and North Korea's development of
longer-range ballistic missile capabilities.

I have to agree with that. How we came to this point, I know that
there has been some disagreement in the intelligence community, but the
Defense Intelligence Agency said that they have moderate confidence
that the North Koreans can put together long-range ballistic missiles
and nuclear warheads. That is a threat we should take seriously. This
amendment, if adopted, would not recognize that threat.
Also, by doing advanced procurement, we save the taxpayers $200
million. So this is ill-advised from a financial standpoint.
The military is adopting a fly-before-you-buy approach. There was one
successful test a few months ago, another test is scheduled toward the
end of this year. Those will be the two tests that the author of this
amendment says that he wants.
So this amendment is totally unnecessary. It would delay what even
the administration--which has been a little too slow--has said is
appropriate. We should not slow things down further. The threats are
real, they are serious, and we need to fund them appropriately.
I ask that you defeat this dangerous amendment.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I'd like to inquire of the Chair how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, I think that to have any type of meaningful missile defense
against potential threats in Korea, Iran, and elsewhere, it needs to
work. That's simply what this amendment says--two tests that work
before $107 million in spending goes forth.

{time} 1010

This is the financially responsible thing to do. Why would we want to
spend first stage 107 million, over 6 years over a billion, on a system
that doesn't work?
It's a very reasonable threshold to have a certification by the
Department of Defense if this works. It provides an additional
incentive to make sure that America stays safe, demonstrates this
works, have an incentive to actually make it work before the rest of
the money is released.
I think that's common sense. I think it aligns incentives of our
contractors and our military and the defense of the American people. I
think it's fiscally prudent. I think it improves our missile defense
opportunities against threats from North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere;
and I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
adopt this commonsense amendment that would save over 107 million for
the ground-based interceptors in the first year, 135 million for the
refurbishment of Missile Field 1, and also ensure that our missile
defense system works by having two tests and a certification that it's
operational by the Secretary of Defense.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Texas, the vice chair of our committee, Mr.
Thornberry.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I'm convinced that the arguments against
missile defense are the same today that they were the day that
President Reagan proposed it: you can't do it, it costs too much, and
it's provocative to try.
And it doesn't really matter how the threat evolves, what North Korea
or Iran do, and it doesn't really matter how the technology evolves. We
just had a successful test just a few months ago.
The events and facts don't matter. The arguments are still the same,
and they will always be the same because some people just don't want to
defend the country against missile attack.
This committee pushed in 2010, in 2011, and in 2012 to have more
interceptors on the west coast. The President opposed it every step of
the way. It didn't happen. And then, all of a sudden, with North Korea
this year, the President changes his mind and says, Oh, maybe you all
were right after all. At least the President changed his mind.
Unfortunately, it seems like some people cannot even do that.
A lot of us think the administration is not doing enough, but to do
less would be negligent, and I think we should reject this amendment.
Mr. McKEON. Might I inquire how much time we have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Arizona, a member of our committee, Mr. Franks.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, ever since mankind took up arms
against his fellow human beings, there has always been an offensive
capability and a defensive capability to try to match it. The spear was
met with the shield. The bullet was met with armor. And, today, we face
the most dangerous weapons in the history of humanity in nuclear-armed
missiles.
Madam Chair, we should have a capable defense. Our ground-based
midcourse defense is the only system that we have that protects the
American homeland from intercontinental ballistic missiles coming into
this country. And, Madam Chair, it is a limited capability, and we
should not further limit it in our policies here today.
As has been so eloquently stated earlier, the President of the United
States cut our GBI capability in recent years and now has changed his
mind to where we will go from 30 to 44 interceptors. And with a 3- or
4-to-1 shot doctrine, that may give us the ability to defend ourselves
up against as many as a dozen incoming missiles.
Madam Chair, it's all right if we have a few too many, but if we have
one too few, it changes everything. Across the world, we've all
understood that the more we sweat in peace, the less we bleed in war.
We need desperately to make sure that we do our fundamental job in this
Congress and in this Federal Government by making sure that we protect
the citizens against the most dangerous weapons mankind has ever
devised, and, Madam Chair, this is why we want to reject this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

[[Page H3603]]

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39
printed in part B of House Report 113-108.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I rise to offer the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 563, after line 11, insert the following:

SEC. 1510. FUNDING LEVELS AS REQUESTED IN PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.

(a) Reductions.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in
the funding tables in division D, the amounts authorized to
be appropriated in this subtitle, as specified in the
corresponding funding tables in sections 4102, 4202, 4302,
4402, and 4502, for additional funds for overseas contingency
operations are hereby reduced by a total of $5,043,828,000.
(b) Deficit Reduction.--The amount reduced under subsection
(a) shall not be available for any purpose other than deficit
reduction.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I'm very pleased to offer this bipartisan amendment along with my
colleagues, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Moran, and Mr. Woodall. I'm very pleased
that it has the support of the ranking member of the Armed Services
Committee, Mr. Smith.
This amendment is about truth in budgeting and making sure our
military has the resources it needs to prosecute the war in Afghanistan
and overseas contingency operations. The Defense Department budget is
split into two parts: the base budget for ongoing operations and the
part of the budget for the war and overseas contingency operations.
What this budget does is provide the military with exactly the
resources they say they need in fiscal year 2014 for the overseas
contingency account. In fact, on Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Hagel
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey, General Dempsey,
said that what they needed was what would be provided as a result of
this amendment. The problem is the underlying bill added another $5
billion, and this is becoming a slush fund, Madam Chairman.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 1 minute at this time to my friend and colleague,
the chair of the Readiness Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, our most important
job here, our most sacred duty as outlined in article 1, section 8 of
the Constitution is to ``raise and support Armies''--to support the men
and women we ask to fight on behalf of our Nation on the fields of
battle. This money supports our constitutional duty and, most
importantly, our warfighters.
This amendment seriously jeopardizes national security and our
ability to replenish readiness accounts raided in prior years to fund
underfunded war costs.
The majority of our forces still fighting Afghanistan will be there
at least until December 2014. Remember, the goal is December 2014. The
war is not over, and these funds are needed to help them do their jobs
and execute their missions as outlined in the strategic plan.
Stripping this money from the overseas contingency fund, literally
from our all-volunteer force that is engaged in combat operations,
places the plan in jeopardy and makes the December 2014 goal
irrelevant.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I find it interesting that the
gentleman would suggest that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the Secretary of Defense are not asking for the resources needed to
protect our men and women in battle.
I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Mulvaney.
Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chairwoman, I haven't been here very long, only 3
years, but I've seen a pattern developing now which is that each year
the Defense Department, the Pentagon, comes over and asks for a certain
amount of money, and then we give them more than they ask for.
What the amendment does today is simply gives the Pentagon what they
ask for. They asked for $80 billion to run the overseas contingency
operation. For some reason, we decided to give them 85 billion. They
come in; they defined a mission and they tell us what it costs to do
that; and then, for some reason, we decide to give them more. All we're
doing today is taking the folks who run the military at their word that
they know what it costs to defend this Nation.
I think it bears repeating that both Secretary Hagel and the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs were here just last week and said that $80 billion
worth of OCO funding was enough to meet the mission. Simply spending
more money than the Defense Department asks for does not mean we are
stronger on defense than anybody else. It's simply foolish to waste
money. If the Pentagon tells us they need $80 billion, we should look
seriously at giving them $80 billion.

{time} 1020

I disagree respectfully with my friend from Virginia who says that
this amendment will hurt national security. If you assume that, then
you must assume that what the Pentagon asked for in the first place
would hurt national security.
I'm simply not willing to agree to that. I'm not willing to believe
that the Pentagon would come over and ask for an amount of money that
would be bad for national defense.
This is a commonsense amendment, it gives the Defense Department
exactly what they need, and it gets us out of this rut of equating
higher spending with a stronger nation defense.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I might note that the same gentleman last
year said they haven't had enough money, and they spent $13 billion
more.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.
Mr. HECK of Nevada. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
This amendment will severely undermine the operational readiness of
our Guard and Reserve forces. Over the past decade, we have built
incredible capability in our Guard and Reserve, and that capability was
largely paid for by overseas contingency operation funds.
To mitigate the risk associated with this administration's force
reductions of 100,000 Active component servicemembers, our Nation will
have to rely on our Reserve component. In fact, in testimony before the
House Armed Services Committee, Army Chief of Staff General Odierno
stated that ``in order to lessen the risk of Active Duty force
reductions, the Army will continue to rely on Reserve components to
provide key enablers and operational depth.''
Decreased funding has already resulted in the cancelation of numerous
of Guard and Reserve deployments, which substantially undermines the
capabilities and readiness of these units.
It is for these reasons that I strongly urge my colleagues to reject
this amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I would just urge all Members to read
the amendment itself. There is nothing in here that says we will reduce
one penny from the National Guard and Reserve. This is an across-the-
board provision and it will be disproportionate.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
We are about to authorize more than half a trillion dollars for our
military. The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff says ``we don't want or need this extra $5

[[Page H3604]]

billion.'' What's our response? We tell him, No, you have to spend
that, but you also have to cut $50 billion from our military in the
most stupid, irresponsible, irrational manner possible. And within that
$50 billion you have to get $2 billion of savings by furloughing
650,000 Department of Defense employees.
So we are going to save $2 billion by furloughing 650,000 people, but
we are going to force them to spend $5 billion over in Afghanistan
while we furlough people here.
What's the rationale? We can't justify that. Of course we should hold
to what our military says they need in Afghanistan. We ought to also
give them what they feel they need here in the United States.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, let me note that the National Guard
Association, the Reserve Officers Association, and the National
Governors Association all oppose this amendment.
At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, over the last 4 years, the administration
has told the Pentagon--the Pentagon has come back--and they have cut
out of national defense $778 billion before they even get to
sequestration. Each time they acknowledge they increase the risk, and
their definition of ``risk'' is ``acceptable risk.'' When you ask them
what that means, it means how many ships we can lose, how many planes
we can lose, how many men and women we can lose and still have some
probability that we will win the conflict if every single assumption
that they make holds true.
If you support that definition of acceptable risk, you need to vote
for this amendment. But I believe we need to change the definition of
acceptable risk and say it means this: when we send one of our men and
women into conflict we have done everything reasonably possible to make
sure they have the highest probability possible of returning to the
home they are defending and to the families that they love.
If you support that definition of acceptable risk, you need to defeat
this amendment.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 1 minute and 15
seconds remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
I would say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle who
have spoken, I agree with absolutely everything you have said. But as I
look at the chairman, who I know has more of a love for this Nation and
our national security than perhaps any other Member of this body, he
and I both voted in favor of the Budget Control Act in August of 2011.
Rightly or wrongly, we set the law of the land of how much we were
going to spend on national defense. Today, we are talking about how
much we are going to spend in Afghanistan.
If we need to spend more money to improve National Guard readiness
here at home, to deal with maintenance accounts here at home, we need
to come together and change those budget caps; and I support doing
that. But I am tired of living in a town where when you don't like the
rules, you find a way around them. When the President doesn't like the
law of the land, he just ignores it. If we don't like the defense
budget caps, we just ignore it and fund it through OCO instead.
We ought to give the Joint Chiefs of Staff every penny they're asking
for to support our men and women in Afghanistan. If they come back and
ask for more, we should give them every penny of that as well.
But the law means something; these caps mean something. We should
either change it or stick with it, Madam Chair.
Mr. McKEON. Note that OCO was not included in the Budget Control Act,
and we are totally within the Budget Control Act on this budget.
Madam Chairman, at this time, I yield 30 seconds to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, as counterintuitive as it may
appear, when there is a drawdown, there may be a long-term savings, but
short-term savings are not there. In fact, the cost spikes.
As all the equipment comes back from the warrior that has to go to
the depots for resetting, repair, and restoration, that is an extreme
cost that has to be borne by the depots if it is not in this particular
bill.
That is one of the reasons why I support the chair's mark, which is
supported by the chairman, as well as Chairman Ryan, and as well as the
original Obama budget when it was sent here before. For whatever
reason, they decided to pull $5 billion out without giving us a plan
going forward. This needs to stay.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, might I inquire as to the time we have
left.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. McKEON. And who will be closing?
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to
close.
Mr. McKEON. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The rationale we have been talking about here is a human rationale.
We have, as we speak, over 60,000 military serving doing the work of
freedom in Afghanistan.
As they prepare to leave, we should not be cutting funding in these
very dangerous times. As you are leaving, you are incredibly
vulnerable. They're still in the fight, they're still working hard,
they need to protect themselves.
While the administration hasn't offered any strategic plan, other
than a date for withdrawal, those who serve there deserve our support
because they have an important mission to perform. Whether it is in
Kabul or a forward-operating base, they are in a dangerous situation.
The reality is that things in Afghanistan are hotter than the
administration estimated in their budget request. We need this money
for contingencies. We need this money because of the delay due to
Pakistan affecting our ground transportation--our exit.
I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do it as
well.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend and
colleague, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

{time} 1030

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Today, I stand to support keeping the money--that $5 billion--that we
need for readiness, and here is why: I think it is absolutely immoral
that we would sign up, suit up and ship out men and women in uniform
and not give them the readiness and the skills and the training that
they need. The flying hours program is a great example of that. In the
$5 billion that the gentleman would like to cut is the money for the
flying hours program--37,000 flying hours. It would equip us with 500
aviators, whom we need. Let's fund these efforts for the men and women
in uniform.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I find it interesting that the
gentlelady would suggest that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Dempsey, would ask for an amount of money for our
warfighters that is immoral. What is cynical is to use the Afghan and
overseas contingency account as a slush fund to fund operations that
are part of the base budget.
This is about truth in budgeting. I urge my colleagues to support
this bipartisan amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H3605]]

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Walz

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53
printed in part B of House Report 113-108.
Mr. WALZ. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following new
section:

SEC. 5__. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON USE OF DETERMINATION
OF PERSONALITY DISORDER OR ADJUSTMENT DISORDER
AS BASIS TO SEPARATE MEMBERS FROM THE ARMED
FORCES.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a report evaluating--
(1) the use by the Secretaries of the military departments,
since January 1, 2007, of the authority to separate members
of the Armed Forces from the Armed Forces due of unfitness
for duty because of a mental condition not amounting to
disability, including separation on the basis of a
personality disorder or adjustment disorder and the total
number of members separated on such basis;
(2) the extent to which the Secretaries failed to comply
with regulatory requirements in separating members of the
Armed Forces on the basis of a personality or adjustment
disorder; and
(3) the impact of such a separation on the ability of
veterans so separated to access service-connected disability
compensation, disability severance pay, and disability
retirement pay.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. WALZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Sergeant Chuck Luther joined the Army after the 9/11 attacks. He
served in Iraq until a mortar round hit near him, knocking him
unconscious. What followed were classic symptoms of traumatic brain
injury--blurred vision, chronic pain, and trouble concentrating.
Liz Luras served this Nation honorably as a soldier in the United
States Army. She survived a rape at the hands of her fellow
servicemember. She did her best to continue her military service with
the dream of attending West Point. She was raped two more times, with
police reports and hospital visits to prove it.
I know each of my colleagues here would expect that both of these
warriors would receive the best care this Nation could provide. Sadly,
the reality is far from that.
Along with Liz and Chuck, since 2001, over 31,000 of our warriors
have been discharged from the military, without benefits, because they
were determined to have had a personality or an adjustment disorder.
These are considered preexisting conditions, which means they should
never have been allowed to enlist in the first place. Even though
Sergeant Luther had multiple mental health evaluations and served
honorably for a decade, it was only after the mortar attack that the
military determined he had a preexisting condition, casually threw him
away and denied him benefits and health care.
A 2008 GAO study concluded that at least 40 percent of these
personality discharges were handed down without going through the
proper Department of Defense process, which means without the
servicemember's being diagnosed by a licensed mental health
professional, without the servicemember's receiving notification of his
discharge and without the servicemember's receiving any formal
counseling. Five years after this report, Congress has done nothing to
ensure that these servicemembers' records are reviewed or corrected, or
to ensure that they receive the care that they earned serving this
Nation.
This week, the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) and I presented
an amendment to this bill that would have allowed these warriors the
basic appeal process to determine if they were improperly discharged.
This amendment is the same as a bill I have, H.R. 975. This would only
afford these warriors basic rights and due processes--the same ones
that they put their lives on the line for that we have. That amendment
was not allowed to come to this floor for debate or for a vote. Shame
on us.
A second amendment I offered would have simply put a moratorium on
this process until we understood why it was being done and what was
happening. That amendment was not allowed to come to this floor to be
debated or voted on. Shame on us.
Now, I want to be clear: the chairman and the ranking member of this
committee had nothing to do with those decisions, and I am appreciative
that they allowed the amendment that I'm debating today to be brought
here. That's going to allow us to do another GAO study to determine if
the problem is still there.
Fine and good, but I'll tell you what: Chuck Luther doesn't want a
study--he wants justice. Liz Luras doesn't want a study--she wants
justice. The American people don't want another study--they want
justice for their warriors.
I would ask each of my colleagues to go home this weekend and ask
your constituents if they think this is fair and if they want a study,
or if they'd rather do what's right and take care of these warriors.
I'd also challenge my colleagues to ask the questions: Why wasn't the
amendment made in order? Why couldn't we debate other than have a
study?
So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It's something. It
will let us know what the scope of this self-inflicted injury and
tragedy to our Nation is. It's not enough. It's not nearly enough. We
should be ashamed that we've not shown Liz and Chuck the same respect
and courage that they showed us as a Nation to serve in uniform. I, for
one, am not going to rest until justice is served, our warriors are
cared for and this wrong is made right.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but
I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. WALZ. I rise once again to thank the chairman. I thank him for
understanding this.
As I say again very clearly, this was not the chairman's decision. He
was gracious enough to bring this down, and I appreciate his support--
the same to the ranking member.
I would just say to my colleagues: don't let this issue drop. Get
this right. We owe it to our warriors.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendments En Bloc No. 8 Offered by Mr. McKeon

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, pursuant to H. Res. 260, I offer amendments
en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 8 consisting of amendment Nos. 73, 146, 149,
150, 152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 161, 163, 166, 170, 171, and 172, printed
in House Report No. 113-108, offered by Mr. McKeon of California:

amendment no. 73 offered by mr. swalwell of california

Page 273, after line 10, insert the following:

SEC. 595. GIFTS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF MILITARY MUSICAL
UNITS.

Section 974 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Performances Funded by Private Donation.--
Notwithstanding section 2601(c) of this title, any gift made
to the Secretary of Defense under section 2601 on the
condition that such gift be used for the benefit of

[[Page H3606]]

a military musical unit shall be credited to the
appropriation or account providing the funds for such
military musical unit. Any amount so credited shall be merged
with amounts in the appropriation or account to which
credited, and shall be available for the same purposes, and
subject to the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in
such appropriation or account.''.

amendment no. 146 offered by mr. conyers of michigan

Page 551, line 12, add at the end before the period the
following: ``or Iran''.

amendment no. 149 offered by mr. hanna of new york

Page 582, insert after line 25 the following:

SEC. 1607. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN SUBCONTRACTORS .

(a) In General.--Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 637(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(16) Credit for certain subcontractor.--For purposes of
determining whether or not a prime contractor has attained
the percentage goals specified in paragraph (6)--
``(A) if the subcontracting goals pertain only to a single
contract with the executive agency, the prime contractor
shall receive credit for small business concerns performing
as first tier subcontractors or subcontractors at any tier
pursuant to the subcontracting plans required under paragraph
(6)(D) in an amount equal to the dollar value of work awarded
to such small business concerns; and
``(B) if the subcontracting goals pertain to more than one
contract with one or more executive agencies, or to one
contract with more than one executive agency, the prime
contractor may only count first tier subcontractors that are
small business concerns.''.
(b) Definitions Pertaining to Subcontracting.--Section 3 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(dd) Definitions Pertaining to Subcontracting.--In this
Act:
``(1) Subcontract.--The term `subcontract' means a legally
binding agreement between a contractor that is already under
contract to another party to perform work, and a third party,
hereinafter referred to as the subcontractor, for the
subcontractor to perform a part, or all, of the work that the
contractor has undertaken.
``(2) First tier subcontractor.--The term `first tier
subcontractor' means a subcontractor who has a subcontract
directly with the prime contractor.
``(3) At any tier.--The term `at any tier' means any
subcontractor other than a subcontractor who is a first tier
subcontractor.''.

SEC. 1608. GAO STUDY ON SUBCONTRACTING REPORTING SYSTEMS.

Not later than 365 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship of the Senate a report studying the
feasibility of using Federal subcontracting reporting
systems, including the Federal subaward reporting system
required by section 2 of the Federal Funding Accountability
and Transparency Act of 2006 and any electronic
subcontracting reporting award system used by the Small
Business Administration, to attribute subcontractors to
particular contracts in the case of contractors that have
subcontracting plans under section 8(d) of the Small Business
Act that pertain to multiple contracts with executive
agencies.

amendment no. 150 offered by mr. graves of missouri

Page 582, insert after line 25 the following:

SEC. 1607. INAPPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENT TO REVIEW AND
JUSTIFY CERTAIN CONTRACTS.

In the case of a contract to which the provisions of
section 46 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657s) apply,
the requirements under section 802 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 do not apply.

amendment no. 152 offered by mr. collins of georgia

At the end of title XXI, add the following new section:

SECTION ____. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION, CAMP
FRANK D. MERRILL, DAHLONEGA, GEORGIA.

(a) Transfer Required.--Not later than September 30, 2014,
the Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer to the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army for
required Army force protection measures certain Federal land
administered as part of the Chattahoochee National Forest,
but permitted to the Secretary of the Army for Camp Frank D.
Merrill in Dahlonega, Georgia, consisting of approximately
282.304 acres identified in the permit numbered 0018-01.
(b) Use of Transferred Land.--Upon receipt of the land
under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Army shall
continue to use the land for military purposes.
(c) Protection of the Etowah Darter and Holiday Darter.--
Nothing in the transfer required by subsection (a) shall
affect the prior designation of lands within the
Chattahoochee National Forest as critical habitat for the
Etowah darter (Etheostoma etowahae) and the Holiday darter
(Etheostoma brevirostrum).
(d) Legal Description and Map.--
(1) Preparation and publication.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall publish in the Federal Register a legal
description and map of the land to be transferred under
subsection (a) not later than 180 days of this Act's
enactment.
(2) Force of law.--The legal description and map filed
under paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as
if included in this Act, except that the Secretary of
Agriculture may correct errors in the legal description and
map.
(e) Reimbursements of Costs.--The transfer required by
subsection (a) shall be made without reimbursement, except
that the Secretary of the Army shall reimburse the Secretary
of Agriculture for any costs incurred by the Secretary of
Agriculture to prepare the legal description and map under
subsection (c).

amendment no. 153 offered by mr. murphy of pennsylvania

At the end of title XXVII, add the following new section:

SEC. 27__. CONSIDERATION OF THE VALUE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY
A LOCAL COMMUNITY TO THE ARMED FORCES AS PART
OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IN MAKING BASE
REALIGNMENT OR CLOSURE DECISIONS.

As part of the economic analysis conducted in making any
base realignment or closure decision under section 2687 of
title 10, United States Code, or other base realignment or
closure authority, or in making any decision under section
993 of such title to reduce the number of members of the
armed forces assigned at a military installation, the
Secretary of Defense shall include an accounting of the value
of services, such as schools, libraries, and utilities, as
well as land, structures, and access to infrastructure, such
as airports and seaports, that are provided by the local
community to the military installation and that result in
cost savings for the Armed Forces.

amendment no. 156 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon

Page 617, after line 22, insert the following:

SEC. 2809. DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER PLANS FOR MAJOR MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS.

Section 2864 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``At a time'' and inserting ``(1) At a
time''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) To address the requirements under paragraph (1), each
installation master plan shall include consideration of--
``(A) planning for compact and infill development;
``(B) horizontal and vertical mixed-use development;
``(C) the full lifecycle costs of planning decisions;
``(D) healthy communities with a focus on walking, running
and biking infrastructure, pedestrian and cycling plans, and
community green and garden space; and
``(E) capacity planning through the establishment of growth
boundaries around cantonment areas to focus development
towards the core and preserve range and training space.''.
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``The transportation'' and inserting ``(1)
The transportation''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) To address the requirements under subsection (a) and
paragraph (1), each installation master plan shall include
consideration of ways to diversify and connect transit
systems that do not neglect the pedestrian realm and enable
safe walking or biking.'';
(3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
(4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsections:
``(c) Vertical Mixed Uses.--A master plan for a major
military installation shall be designed to strongly multi-
story, mixed-use facility solutions that are sited in
walkable complexes so as to avoid, when reasonable, single-
purpose, inflexible facilities that are sited in a sprawling
manner. Vertical mixed-use infrastructure can integrate
government, non-government, or jointly financed construction
within a single unit.
``(d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall
supercede the requirements of section 2859(a) of this
title.''.

amendment no. 157 offered by mr. gardner of colorado

At the end of subtitle B of title XXVIII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 28__. CONDITIONS ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPANSION OF
PINON CANYON MANEUVER SITE, FORT CARSON,
COLORADO.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Fort Carson
was established in 1942 and has since been a vital
contributor to our Nation's defense and a valued part of the
State of Colorado.
(2) The units at Fort Carson have served with a great honor
and distinction in the current War on Terror.
(3) The current Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site near Fort
Carson, Colorado, plays an important role in training our men
and women in uniform so they are as prepared and effective as
possible before going off to war.

[[Page H3607]]

(b) Conditions on Expansion.--The Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of the Army may not acquire any land to expand
the size of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site near Fort Carson,
Colorado, unless each of the following occurs:
(1) The land acquisition is specifically authorized in an
Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Funds are specifically appropriated for the land
acquisition.
(3) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Army,
as the case may be, completes an environmental impact
statement with respect to the land acquisition.

amendment no. 158 offered by mr. hunter of california

At the end of subtitle F of title XXVIII, add the
following:

SEC. 2866. INCLUSION OF EMBLEMS OF BELIEF AS PART OF MILITARY
MEMORIALS.

(a) Inclusion of Emblems of Belief Authorized.--Chapter 21
of title 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``Sec. 2115. Inclusion of emblems of belief as part of
military memorials

``(a) Authorized Inclusion.--For the purpose of honoring
the sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces,
including those members who make the ultimate sacrifice in
defense of the United States, emblems of belief may be
included as part of--
``(1) a military memorial that is established or acquired
by the United States Government; or
``(2) a military memorial that is not established by the
United States Government, but for which the American Battle
Monuments Commission cooperated in the establishment of the
memorial.
``(b) Scope of Inclusion.--When including emblems of belief
as part of a military memorial, any approved emblem of belief
may be included on such a memorial. The list of approved
emblems of belief shall include, at a minimum, all those
emblems of belief authorized by the National Cemetery
Administration.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The terms `emblem of belief' and `emblems of belief'
refer to the emblems of belief contained on the list
maintained by the National Cemetery Administration for
placement on Government-provided headstones and markers.
``(2) The term `military memorial' means a memorial or
monument commemorating the service of the United States Armed
Forces. The term includes works of architecture and art
described in section 2105(b) of this title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``2115. Inclusion of emblems of belief as part of military
memorials.''.

amendment no. 161 offered by mr. hastings of washington

At the end of subtitle D of title XXXI, insert the
following:

SEC. 3145. CONVEYANCE OF LAND AT THE HANFORD SITE.

(a) Conveyance Required.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
convey, for consideration at the estimated fair market value
or, in accordance with paragraph (2), below such value, to
the Community Reuse Organization of the Hanford Site (in this
section referred to as the ``Organization'') all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the real
property, including any improvements thereon, described in
paragraph (3).
(2) Consideration.--The Secretary may convey real property
pursuant to paragraph (1) for consideration below the
estimated fair market value of the real property, or without
consideration, only if the Organization--
(A) agrees that the net proceeds from any sale or lease of
the real property (or any portion thereof) received by the
Organization during at least the seven-year period beginning
on the date of such conveyance will be used to support the
economic redevelopment of, or related to, the Hanford Site;
and
(B) executes the agreement for such conveyance and accepts
control of the real property within a reasonable time.
(3) Real property described.--The real property described
in this paragraph is the real property consisting of two
parcels of land of approximately 1,341 acres and 300 acres,
respectively, of the Hanford Reservation, as requested by the
Community Reuse Organization for the Hanford Site on May 31,
2011, and October 13, 2011, and as depicted within the
proposed boundaries on the map titled ``Attachment 2--Revised
Map'' included in the letter sent by the Community Reuse
Organization for the Hanford Site to the Department of Energy
on October 13, 2011.
(b) Priority Consideration.--The Secretary shall actively
solicit, and provide priority consideration to, the views of
the cities and counties adjacent to the Hanford Site with
respect to the development and execution of the Hanford
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

amendment no. 163 offered by mr. hastings of washington

At the end of title XXXI, add the following new section:

SEC. 31__. MANHATTAN PROJECT NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to preserve and protect for the benefit of present and
future generations the nationally significant historic
resources associated with the Manhattan Project and which are
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy defense
environmental cleanup program under this title;
(2) to improve public understanding of the Manhattan
Project and the legacy of the Manhattan Project through
interpretation of the historic resources associated with the
Manhattan Project;
(3) to enhance public access to the Historical Park
consistent with protection of public safety, national
security, and other aspects of the mission of the Department
of Energy; and
(4) to assist the Department of Energy, Historical Park
communities, historical societies, and other interested
organizations and individuals in efforts to preserve and
protect the historically significant resources associated
with the Manhattan Project.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Historical park.--The term ``Historical Park'' means
the Manhattan Project National Historical Park established
under subsection (c).
(2) Manhattan project.--The term ``Manhattan Project''
means the Federal military program to develop an atomic bomb
ending on December 31, 1946.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(c) Establishment of Manhattan Project National Historical
Park.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) Date.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, there shall be established as a
unit of the National Park System the Manhattan Project
National Historical Park.
(B) Areas included.--The Historical Park shall consist of
facilities and areas listed under paragraph (2) as determined
by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Energy. The Secretary shall include the area referred to in
paragraph (2)(C)(i), the B Reactor National Historic
Landmark, in the Historical Park.
(2) Eligible areas.--The Historical Park may only be
comprised of one or more of the following areas, or portions
of the areas, as generally depicted in the map titled
``Manhattan Project National Historical Park Sites'',
numbered 540/108,834-C, and dated September 2012:
(A) Oak ridge, tennessee.--Facilities, land, or interests
in land that are--
(i) at Buildings 9204-3 and 9731 at the Department of
Energy Y-12 National Security Complex;
(ii) at the X-10 Graphite Reactor at the Department of
Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
(iii) at the K-25 Building site at the Department of Energy
East Tennessee Technology Park; and
(iv) at the former Guest House located at 210 East Madison
Road.
(B) Los alamos, new mexico.--Facilities, land, or interests
in land that are--
(i) in the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory National
Historic Landmark District, or any addition to the Landmark
District proposed in the National Historic Landmark
Nomination--Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) NHL
District (Working Draft of NHL Revision), Los Alamos National
Laboratory document LA-UR 12-00387 (January 26, 2012);
(ii) at the former East Cafeteria located at 1670 Nectar
Street; and
(iii) at the former dormitory located at 1725 17th Street.
(C) Hanford, washington.--Facilities, land, or interests in
land on the Department of Energy Hanford Nuclear Reservation
that are--
(i) the B Reactor National Historic Landmark;
(ii) the Hanford High School in the town of Hanford and
Hanford Construction Camp Historic District;
(iii) the White Bluffs Bank building in the White Bluffs
Historic District;
(iv) the warehouse at the Bruggemann's Agricultural
Complex;
(v) the Hanford Irrigation District Pump House; and
(vi) the T Plant (221-T Process Building).
(3) Written consent of owner.--No non-Federal property may
be included in the Historical Park without the written
consent of the owner.
(d) Agreement.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary and the Secretary of
Energy (acting through the Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and
Richland site offices) shall enter into an agreement
governing the respective roles of the Secretary and the
Secretary of Energy in administering the facilities, land, or
interests in land under the administrative jurisdiction of
the Department of Energy that is to be included in the
Historical Park under subsection (c)(2), including provisions
for enhanced public access, management, interpretation, and
historic preservation.
(2) Responsibilities of the secretary.--Any agreement under
paragraph (1) shall provide that the Secretary shall--
(A) have decisionmaking authority for the content of
historic interpretation of the Manhattan Project for purposes
of administering the Historical Park; and
(B) ensure that the agreement provides an appropriate
advisory role for the National Park Service in preserving the
historic resources covered by the agreement.

[[Page H3608]]

(3) Responsibilities of the secretary of energy.--Any
agreement under paragraph (1) shall provide that the
Secretary of Energy--
(A) shall ensure that the agreement appropriately protects
public safety, national security, and other aspects of the
ongoing mission of the Department of Energy at the Oak Ridge
Reservation, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Hanford
Site;
(B) may consult with and provide historical information to
the Secretary concerning the Manhattan Project;
(C) shall retain responsibility, in accordance with
applicable law, for any environmental remediation that may be
necessary in or around the facilities, land, or interests in
land governed by the agreement; and
(D) shall retain authority and legal obligations for
historic preservation and general maintenance, including to
ensure safe access, in connection with the Department's
Manhattan Project resources.
(4) Amendments.--The agreement under paragraph (1) may be
amended, including to add to the Historical Park facilities,
land, or interests in land within the eligible areas
described in subsection (c)(2) that are under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy.
(e) Public Participation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall consult with
interested State, county, and local officials, organizations,
and interested members of the public--
(A) before executing any agreement under subsection (d);
and
(B) in the development of the general management plan under
subsection (f)(2).
(2) Notice of determination.--Not later than 30 days after
the date on which an agreement under subsection (d) is
entered into, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal
Register notice of the establishment of the Historical Park,
including an official boundary map.
(3) Availability of map.--The official boundary map
published under paragraph (2) shall be on file and available
for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the
National Park Service. The map shall be updated to reflect
any additions to the Historical Park from eligible areas
described in subsection (c)(2).
(4) Additions.--Any land, interest in land, or facility
within the eligible areas described in subsection (c)(2) that
is acquired by the Secretary or included in an amendment to
the agreement under subsection (d)(4) shall be added to the
Historical Park.
(f) Administration.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall administer the
Historical Park in accordance with--
(A) this section; and
(B) the laws generally applicable to units of the National
Park System, including--
(i) the National Park System Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.); and
(ii) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
(2) General management plan.--Not later than 3 years after
the date on which funds are made available to carry out this
subsection, the Secretary, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of Energy, and in consultation and collaboration
with the Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Richland Department of
Energy site offices, shall complete a general management plan
for the Historical Park in accordance with section 12(b) of
Public Law 91-383 (commonly known as the National Park
Service General Authorities Act; 16 U.S.C. 1a-7(b)).
(3) Interpretive tours.--The Secretary may, subject to
applicable law, provide interpretive tours of historically
significant Manhattan Project sites and resources in the
States of Tennessee, New Mexico, and Washington that are
located outside the boundary of the Historical Park.
(4) Land acquisition.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may acquire land and
interests in land within the eligible areas described in
subsection (c)(2) by--
(i) transfer of administrative jurisdiction from the
Department of Energy by agreement between the Secretary and
the Secretary of Energy;
(ii) donation; or
(iii) exchange.
(B) No use of condemnation.--The Secretary may not acquire
by condemnation any land or interest in land under this
section or for the purposes of this section.
(5) Donations; cooperative agreements.--
(A) Federal facilities.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary may enter into one or more
agreements with the head of a Federal agency to provide
public access to, and management, interpretation, and
historic preservation of, historically significant Manhattan
Project resources under the jurisdiction or control of the
Federal agency.
(ii) Donations; cooperative agreements.--The Secretary may
accept donations from, and enter into cooperative agreements
with, State governments, units of local government, tribal
governments, organizations, or individuals to further the
purpose of an interagency agreement entered into under clause
(i) or to provide visitor services and administrative
facilities within reasonable proximity to the Historical
Park.
(B) Technical assistance.--The Secretary may provide
technical assistance to State, local, or tribal governments,
organizations, or individuals for the management,
interpretation, and historic preservation of historically
significant Manhattan Project resources not included within
the Historical Park.
(C) Donations to department of energy.--For the purposes of
this section, or for the purpose of preserving and providing
access to historically significant Manhattan Project
resources, the Secretary of Energy may accept, hold,
administer, and use gifts, bequests, and devises (including
labor and services).
(g) Clarification.--
(1) No buffer zone created.--Nothing in this section, the
establishment of the Historical Park, or the management plan
for the Historical Park shall be construed to create buffer
zones outside of the Historical Park. That an activity can be
seen and heard from within the Historical Park shall not
preclude the conduct of that activity or use outside the
Historical Park.
(2) No cause of action.--Nothing in this section shall
constitute a cause of action with respect to activities
outside or adjacent to the established boundary of the
Historical Park.

amendment no. 166 offered by mr. issa of california

At the end of the bill, add the following new division:

DIVISION E--FEDERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION REFORM ACT

SEC. 5001. SHORT TITLE.

This division may be cited as the ``Federal Information
Technology Acquisition Reform Act''.

SEC. 5002. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this division is as follows:

Sec. 5001. Short title.
Sec. 5002. Table of contents.
Sec. 5003. Definitions.

TITLE LI--MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WITHIN FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT

Sec. 5101. Increased authority of agency Chief Information Officers
over information technology.
Sec. 5102. Lead coordination role of Chief Information Officers
Council.
Sec. 5103. Reports by Government Accountability Office.

TITLE LII--DATA CENTER OPTIMIZATION

Sec. 5201. Purpose.
Sec. 5202. Definitions.
Sec. 5203. Federal data center optimization initiative.
Sec. 5204. Performance requirements related to data center
consolidation.
Sec. 5205. Cost savings related to data center optimization.
Sec. 5206. Reporting requirements to Congress and the Federal Chief
Information Officer.

TITLE LIII--ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATION AND WASTE IN INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION

Sec. 5301. Inventory of information technology assets.
Sec. 5302. Website consolidation and transparency.
Sec. 5303. Transition to the cloud.
Sec. 5304. Elimination of unnecessary duplication of contracts by
requiring business case analysis.

TITLE LIV--STRENGTHENING AND STREAMLINING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Subtitle A--Strengthening and Streamlining IT Program Management
Practices

Sec. 5401. Establishment of Federal infrastructure and common
application collaboration center.
Sec. 5402. Designation of Assisted Acquisition Centers of Excellence.

Subtitle B--Strengthening IT Acquisition Workforce

Sec. 5411. Expansion of training and use of information technology
acquisition cadres.
Sec. 5412. Plan on strengthening program and project management
performance.
Sec. 5413. Personnel awards for excellence in the acquisition of
information systems and information technology.

TITLE LV--ADDITIONAL REFORMS

Sec. 5501. Maximizing the benefit of the Federal Strategic Sourcing
Initiative.
Sec. 5502. Promoting transparency of blanket purchase agreements.
Sec. 5503. Additional source selection technique in solicitations.
Sec. 5504. Enhanced transparency in information technology investments.
Sec. 5505. Enhanced communication between Government and industry.
Sec. 5506. Clarification of current law with respect to technology
neutrality in acquisition of software.

SEC. 5003. DEFINITIONS.

In this division:
(1) Chief acquisition officers council.--The term ``Chief
Acquisition Officers Council'' means the Chief Acquisition
Officers Council established by section 1311(a) of title 41,
United States Code.
(2) Chief information officer.--The term ``Chief
Information Officer'' means a Chief Information Officer (as
designated under section 3506(a)(2) of title 44, United
States Code)

[[Page H3609]]

of an agency listed in section 901(b) of title 31, United
States Code.
(3) Chief information officers council.--The term ``Chief
Information Officers Council'' or ``CIO Council'' means the
Chief Information Officers Council established by section
3603(a) of title 44, United States Code.
(4) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
(5) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means each
agency listed in section 901(b) of title 31, United States
Code.
(6) Federal chief information officer.--The term ``Federal
Chief Information Officer'' means the Administrator of the
Office of Electronic Government established under section
3602 of title 44, United States Code.
(7) Information technology or it.--The term ``information
technology'' or ``IT'' has the meaning provided in section
11101(6) of title 40, United States Code.
(8) Relevant congressional committees.--The term ``relevant
congressional committees'' means each of the following:
(A) The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives.
(B) The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

TITLE LI--MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WITHIN FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT

SEC. 5101. INCREASED AUTHORITY OF AGENCY CHIEF INFORMATION
OFFICERS OVER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

(a) Presidential Appointment of CIOs of Certain Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Section 11315 of title 40, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (a) as subsection (e) and
moving such subsection to the end of the section; and
(B) by inserting before subsection (b) the following new
subsection (a):
``(a) Presidential Appointment or Designation of Certain
Chief Information Officers.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be within each agency listed
in section 901(b)(1) of title 31, other than the Department
of Defense, an agency Chief Information Officer. Each agency
Chief Information Officer shall--
``(A)(i) be appointed by the President; or
``(ii) be designated by the President, in consultation with
the head of the agency; and
``(B) be appointed or designated, as applicable, from among
individuals who possess demonstrated ability in general
management of, and knowledge of and extensive practical
experience in, information technology management practices in
large governmental or business entities.
``(2) Responsibilities.--An agency Chief Information
Officer appointed or designated under this section shall
report directly to the head of the agency and carry out, on a
full-time basis, responsibilities as set forth in this
section and in section 3506(a) of title 44 for Chief
Information Officers designated under paragraph (2) of such
section.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 3506(a)(2)(A) of title
44, United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``each
agency'' the following: ``, other than an agency with a
Presidentially appointed or designated Chief Information
Officer as provided in section 11315(a)(1) of title 40,''.
(b) Authority Relating to Budget and Personnel.--Section
11315 of title 40, United States Code, is further amended by
inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
``(d) Additional Authorities for Certain CIOs.--
``(1) Budget-related authority.--
``(A) Planning.--The head of each agency listed in section
901(b)(1) or 901(b)(2) of title 31, other than the Department
of Defense, shall ensure that the Chief Information Officer
of the agency has the authority to participate in decisions
regarding the budget planning process related to information
technology or programs that include significant information
technology components.
``(B) Allocation.--Amounts appropriated for any agency
listed in section 901(b)(1) or 901(b)(2) of title 31, other
than the Department of Defense, for any fiscal year that are
available for information technology shall be allocated
within the agency, consistent with the provisions of
appropriations Acts and budget guidelines and recommendations
from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in
such manner as may be specified by, or approved by, the Chief
Information Officer of the agency in consultation with the
Chief Financial Officer of the agency and budget officials.
``(2) Personnel-related authority.--The head of each agency
listed in section 901(b)(1) or 901(b)(2) of title 31, other
than the Department of Defense, shall ensure that the Chief
Information Officer of the agency has the authority necessary
to approve the hiring of personnel who will have information
technology responsibilities within the agency and to require
that such personnel have the obligation to report to the
Chief Information Officer in a manner considered sufficient
by the Chief Information Officer.''.
(c) Single Chief Information Officer in Each Agency.--
(1) Requirement.--Section 3506(a)(3) of title 44, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Each agency shall have only one individual with the
title and designation of `Chief Information Officer'. Any
bureau, office, or subordinate organization within the agency
may designate one individual with the title `Deputy Chief
Information Officer', `Associate Chief Information Officer',
or `Assistant Chief Information Officer'.''.
(2) Effective date.--Section 3506(a)(3)(B) of title 44,
United States Code, as added by paragraph (1), shall take
effect as of October 1, 2014. Any individual serving in a
position affected by such section before such date may
continue in that position if the requirements of such section
are fulfilled with respect to that individual.

SEC. 5102. LEAD COORDINATION ROLE OF CHIEF INFORMATION
OFFICERS COUNCIL.

(a) Lead Coordination Role.--Subsection (d) of section 3603
of title 44, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Lead Interagency Forum.--
``(1) In general.--The Council is designated the lead
interagency forum for improving agency coordination of
practices related to the design, development, modernization,
use, operation, sharing, performance, and review of Federal
Government information resources investment. As the lead
interagency forum, the Council shall develop cross-agency
portfolio management practices to allow and encourage the
development of cross-agency shared services and shared
platforms. The Council shall also issue guidelines and
practices for infrastructure and common information
technology applications, including expansion of the Federal
Enterprise Architecture process if appropriate. The
guidelines and practices may address broader transparency,
common inputs, common outputs, and outcomes achieved. The
guidelines and practices shall be used as a basis for
comparing performance across diverse missions and operations
in various agencies.
``(2) Report.--Not later than December 1 in each of the 6
years following the date of the enactment of this paragraph,
the Council shall submit to the relevant congressional
committees a report (to be known as the `CIO Council Report')
summarizing the Council's activities in the preceding fiscal
year and containing such recommendations for further
congressional action to fulfill its mission as the Council
considers appropriate.
``(3) Relevant congressional committees.--For purposes of
the report required by paragraph (2), the relevant
congressional committees are each of the following:
``(A) The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives.
``(B) The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.''.
(b) Additional Function.--Subsection (f) of section 3603 of
such title is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(8) Assist the Administrator in developing and providing
guidance for effective operations of the Federal
Infrastructure and Common Application Collaboration Center
established under section 11501 of title 40.''.
(c) References to Administrator of E-Government as Federal
Chief Information Officer.--
(1) References.--Section 3602(b) of title 44, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Administrator may also be referred to as the Federal Chief
Information Officer.''.
(2) Definition.--Section 3601(1) of such title is amended
by inserting ``or `Federal Chief Information Officer' ''
before ``means''.

SEC. 5103. REPORTS BY GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE.

(a) Requirement to Examine Effectiveness.--The Comptroller
General of the United States shall examine the effectiveness
of the Chief Information Officers Council in meeting its
responsibilities under section 3603(d) of title 44, United
States Code, as added by section 5102, with particular focus
on--
(1) whether agencies are actively participating in the
Council and heeding the Council's advice and guidance; and
(2) whether the Council is actively using and developing
the capabilities of the Federal Infrastructure and Common
Application Collaboration Center created under section 11501
of title 40, United States Code, as added by section 5401.
(b) Reports.--Not later than 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General shall submit to the relevant congressional committees
a report containing the findings and recommendations of the
Comptroller General from the examination required by
subsection (a).

TITLE LII--DATA CENTER OPTIMIZATION

SEC. 5201. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this title is to optimize Federal data
center usage and efficiency.

SEC. 5202. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Federal data center optimization initiative.--The term
``Federal Data Center Optimization Initiative'' or the
``Initiative'' means the initiative developed and implemented
by the Director, through the Federal Chief Information
Officer, as required under section 5203.
(2) Covered agency.--The term ``covered agency'' means any
agency included in the Federal Data Center Optimization
Initiative.
(3) Data center.--The term ``data center'' means a closet,
room, floor, or building for the storage, management, and
dissemination

[[Page H3610]]

of data and information, as defined by the Federal Chief
Information Officer under guidance issued pursuant to this
section.
(4) Federal data center.--The term ``Federal data center''
means any data center of a covered agency used or operated by
a covered agency, by a contractor of a covered agency, or by
another organization on behalf of a covered agency.
(5) Server utilization.--The term ``server utilization''
refers to the activity level of a server relative to its
maximum activity level, expressed as a percentage.
(6) Power usage effectiveness.--The term ``power usage
effectiveness'' means the ratio obtained by dividing the
total amount of electricity and other power consumed in
running a data center by the power consumed by the
information and communications technology in the data center.

SEC. 5203. FEDERAL DATA CENTER OPTIMIZATION INITIATIVE.

(a) Requirement for Initiative.--The Federal Chief
Information Officer, in consultation with the chief
information officers of covered agencies, shall develop and
implement an initiative, to be known as the Federal Data
Center Optimization Initiative, to optimize the usage and
efficiency of Federal data centers by meeting the
requirements of this division and taking additional measures,
as appropriate.
(b) Requirement for Plan.--Within 6 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Chief Information
Officer, in consultation with the chief information officers
of covered agencies, shall develop and submit to Congress a
plan for implementation of the Initiative required by
subsection (a) by each covered agency. In developing the
plan, the Federal Chief Information Officer shall take into
account the findings and recommendations of the Comptroller
General review required by section 5205(e).
(c) Matters Covered.--The plan shall include--
(1) descriptions of how covered agencies will use
reductions in floor space, energy use, infrastructure,
equipment, applications, personnel, increases in
multiorganizational use, server virtualization, cloud
computing, and other appropriate methods to meet the
requirements of the initiative; and
(2) appropriate consideration of shifting Federally owned
data centers to commercially owned data centers.

SEC. 5204. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO DATA CENTER
CONSOLIDATION.

(a) Server Utilization.--Each covered agency may use the
following methods to achieve the maximum server utilization
possible as determined by the Federal Chief Information
Officer.
(1) The closing of existing data centers that lack adequate
server utilization, as determined by the Federal Chief
Information Officer. If the agency fails to close such data
centers, the agency shall provide a detailed explanation as
to why this data center should remain in use as part of the
submitted plan. The Federal Chief Information Officer shall
include an assessment of the agency explanation in the annual
report to Congress.
(2) The consolidation of services within existing data
centers to increase server utilization rates.
(3) Any other method that the Federal Chief Information
Officer, in consultation with the chief information officers
of covered agencies, determines necessary to optimize server
utilization.
(b) Power Usage Effectiveness.--Each covered agency may use
the following methods to achieve the maximum energy
efficiency possible as determined by the Federal Chief
Information Officer:
(1) The use of the measurement of power usage effectiveness
to calculate data center energy efficiency.
(2) The use of power meters in data centers to frequently
measure power consumption over time.
(3) The establishment of power usage effectiveness goals
for each data center.
(4) The adoption of best practices for managing--
(A) temperature and airflow in data centers; and
(B) power supply efficiency.
(5) The implementation of any other method that the Federal
Chief Information Officer, in consultation with the Chief
Information Officers of covered agencies, determines
necessary to optimize data center energy efficiency.

SEC. 5205. COST SAVINGS RELATED TO DATA CENTER OPTIMIZATION.

(a) Requirement to Track Costs.--
(1) In general.--Each covered agency shall track costs
resulting from implementation of the Federal Data Center
Optimization Initiative within the agency and submit a report
on those costs annually to the Federal Chief Information
Officer. Covered agencies shall determine the net costs from
data consolidation on an annual basis.
(2) Factors.--In calculating net costs each year under
paragraph (1), a covered agency shall use the following
factors:
(A) Energy costs.
(B) Personnel costs.
(C) Real estate costs.
(D) Capital expense costs.
(E) Maintenance and support costs such as operating
subsystem, database, hardware, and software license expense
costs.
(F) Other appropriate costs, as determined by the agency in
consultation with the Federal Chief Information Officer.
(b) Requirement to Track Savings.--
(1) In general.--Each covered agency shall track savings
resulting from implementation of the Federal Data Center
Optimization Initiative within the agency and submit a report
on those savings annually to the Federal Chief Information
Officer. Covered agencies shall determine the net savings
from data consolidation on an annual basis.
(2) Factors.--In calculating net savings each year under
paragraph (1), a covered agency shall use the following
factors:
(A) Energy savings.
(B) Personnel savings.
(C) Real estate savings.
(D) Capital expense savings.
(E) Maintenance and support savings such as operating
subsystem, database, hardware, and software license expense
savings.
(F) Other appropriate savings, as determined by the agency
in consultation with the Federal Chief Information Officer.
(c) Requirement to Use Cost-effective Measures.--Covered
agencies shall use the most cost-effective measures to
implement the Federal Data Center Optimization Initiative.
(d) Use of Savings.--Subject to appropriations, any savings
resulting from implementation of the Federal Data Center
Optimization Initiative within a covered agency shall be used
for the following purposes:
(1) To offset the costs of implementing the Initiative
within the agency.
(2) To further enhance information technology capabilities
and services within the agency.
(e) Government Accountability Office Review.--Not later
than 3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Comptroller General of the United States shall examine
methods for calculating savings from the Initiative and using
them for the purposes identified in subsection (d), including
establishment and use of a special revolving fund that
supports data centers and server optimization, and shall
submit to the Federal Chief Information Officer and Congress
a report on the Comptroller General's findings and
recommendations.

SEC. 5206. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO CONGRESS AND THE FEDERAL
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.

(a) Agency Requirement to Report to CIO.--Each year, each
covered agency shall submit to the Federal Chief Information
Officer a report on the implementation of the Federal Data
Center Optimization Initiative, including savings resulting
from such implementation. The report shall include an update
of the agency's plan for implementing the Initiative.
(b) Federal Chief Information Officer Requirement to Report
to Congress.--Each year, the Federal Chief Information
Officer shall submit to the relevant congressional committees
a report that assesses agency progress in carrying out the
Federal Data Center Optimization Initiative and updates the
plan under section 5203. The report may be included as part
of the annual report required under section 3606 of title 44,
United States Code.

TITLE LIII--ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATION AND WASTE IN INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION

SEC. 5301. INVENTORY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSETS.

(a) Plan.--The Director shall develop a plan for conducting
a Governmentwide inventory of information technology assets.
(b) Matters Covered.--The plan required by subsection (a)
shall cover the following:
(1) The manner in which Federal agencies can achieve the
greatest possible economies of scale and cost savings in the
procurement of information technology assets, through
measures such as reducing hardware or software products or
services that are duplicative or overlapping and reducing the
procurement of new software licenses until such time as
agency needs exceed the number of existing and unused
licenses.
(2) The capability to conduct ongoing Governmentwide
inventories of all existing software licenses on an
application-by-application basis, including duplicative,
unused, overused, and underused licenses, and to assess the
need of agencies for software licenses.
(3) A Governmentwide spending analysis to provide knowledge
about how much is being spent for software products or
services to support decisions for strategic sourcing under
the Federal strategic sourcing program managed by the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy.
(c) Other Inventories.--In developing the plan required by
subsection (a), the Director shall review the inventory of
information systems maintained by each agency under section
3505(c) of title 44, United States Code, and the inventory of
information resources maintained by each agency under section
3506(b)(4) of such title.
(d) Availability.--The inventory of information technology
assets shall be available to Chief Information Officers and
such other Federal officials as the Chief Information
Officers may, in consultation with the Chief Information
Officers Council, designate.
(e) Deadline and Submission to Congress.--Not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Director shall complete and submit to Congress the plan
required by subsection (a).
(f) Implementation.--Not later than two years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall
complete implementation of the plan required by subsection
(a).
(g) Review by Comptroller General.--Not later than two
years after the date of

[[Page H3611]]

the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall review the plan required by subsection
(a) and submit to the relevant congressional committees a
report on the review.

SEC. 5302. WEBSITE CONSOLIDATION AND TRANSPARENCY.

(a) Website Consolidation.--The Director shall--
(1) in consultation with Federal agencies, and after
reviewing the directory of public Federal Government websites
of each agency (as required to be established and updated
under section 207(f)(3) of the E-Government Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-347; 44 U.S.C. 3501 note)), assess all the
publicly available websites of Federal agencies to determine
whether there are duplicative or overlapping websites; and
(2) require Federal agencies to eliminate or consolidate
those websites that are duplicative or overlapping.
(b) Website Transparency.--The Director shall issue
guidance to Federal agencies to ensure that the data on
publicly available websites of the agencies are open and
accessible to the public.
(c) Matters Covered.--In preparing the guidance required by
subsection (b), the Director shall--
(1) develop guidelines, standards, and best practices for
interoperability and transparency;
(2) identify interfaces that provide for shared, open
solutions on the publicly available websites of the agencies;
and
(3) ensure that Federal agency Internet home pages, web-
based forms, and web-based applications are accessible to
individuals with disabilities in conformance with section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d).
(d) Deadline for Guidance.--The guidance required by
subsection (b) shall be issued not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5303. TRANSITION TO THE CLOUD.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
transition to cloud computing offers significant potential
benefits for the implementation of Federal information
technology projects in terms of flexibility, cost, and
operational benefits.
(b) Governmentwide Application.--In assessing cloud
computing opportunities, the Chief Information Officers
Council shall define policies and guidelines for the adoption
of Governmentwide programs providing for a standardized
approach to security assessment and operational authorization
for cloud products and services.
(c) Additional Budget Authorities for Transition.--In
transitioning to the cloud, a Chief Information Officer of an
agency listed in section 901(b) of title 31, United States
Code, may establish such cloud service Working Capital Funds,
in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer of the
agency, as may be necessary to transition to cloud-based
solutions. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such
cloud service Working Capital Funds may preserve funding for
cloud service transitions for a period not to exceed 5 years
per appropriation. Any establishment of a new Working Capital
Fund under this subsection shall be reported to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate and relevant Congressional committees.

SEC. 5304. ELIMINATION OF UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF
CONTRACTS BY REQUIRING BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to leverage
the Government's buying power and achieve administrative
efficiencies and cost savings by eliminating unnecessary
duplication of contracts.
(b) Requirement for Business Case Approval.--
(1) In general.--Effective on and after 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, an executive agency may
not issue a solicitation for a covered contract vehicle
unless the agency performs a business case analysis for the
contract vehicle and obtains an approval of the business case
analysis from the Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy.
(2) Review of business case analysis.--
(A) In general.--With respect to any covered contract
vehicle, the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy
shall review the business case analysis submitted for the
contract vehicle and provide an approval or disapproval
within 60 days after the date of submission. Any business
case analysis not disapproved within such 60-day period is
deemed to be approved.
(B) Basis for approval of business case.--The Administrator
for Federal Procurement Policy shall approve or disapprove a
business case analysis based on the adequacy of the analysis
submitted. The Administrator shall give primary consideration
to whether an agency has demonstrated a compelling need that
cannot be satisfied by existing Governmentwide contract
vehicles in a timely and cost-effective manner.
(3) Content of business case analysis.--The Administrator
for Federal Procurement Policy shall issue guidance
specifying the content for a business case analysis submitted
pursuant to this section. At a minimum, the business case
analysis shall include details on the administrative
resources needed for such contract vehicle, including an
analysis of all direct and indirect costs to the Federal
Government of awarding and administering such contract
vehicle and the impact such contract vehicle will have on the
ability of the Federal Government to leverage its purchasing
power.
(c) Definitions.--
(1) Covered contract vehicle.--The term ``covered contract
vehicle'' has the meaning provided by the Administrator for
Federal Procurement Policy in guidance issued pursuant to
this section and includes, at a minimum, any Governmentwide
contract vehicle, whether for acquisition of information
technology or other goods or services, in an amount greater
than $50,000,000 (or $10,000,000, determined on an average
annual basis, in the case of such a contract vehicle
performed over more than one year). The term does not include
a multiple award schedule contract awarded by the General
Services Administration, a Governmentwide acquisition
contract for information technology awarded pursuant to
sections 11302(e) and 11314(a)(2) of title 40, United States
Code, or orders against existing Governmentwide contract
vehicles.
(2) Governmentwide contract vehicle and executive agency.--
The terms ``Governmentwide contract vehicle'' and ``executive
agency'' have the meanings provided in section 11501 of title
40, United States Code, as added by section 5401.
(d) Report.--Not later than June 1 in each of the next 6
years following the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall submit to
the relevant congressional committees a report on the
implementation of this section, including a summary of the
submissions, reviews, approvals, and disapprovals of business
case analyses pursuant to this section.
(e) Guidance.--The Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy shall issue guidance for implementing this section.
(f) Revision of Far.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition
Regulation shall be amended to implement this section.

TITLE LIV--STRENGTHENING AND STREAMLINING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Subtitle A--Strengthening and Streamlining IT Program Management
Practices

SEC. 5401. ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMON
APPLICATION COLLABORATION CENTER.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 115 of title 40, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``CHAPTER 115--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

``Sec.
``11501. Federal infrastructure and common application collaboration
center.

``Sec. 11501. Federal infrastructure and common application
collaboration center

``(a) Establishment and Purposes.--The Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall establish a Federal
Infrastructure and Common Application Collaboration Center
(hereafter in this section referred to as the `Collaboration
Center') within the Office of Electronic Government
established under section 3602 of title 44 in accordance with
this section. The purposes of the Collaboration Center are to
serve as a focal point for coordinated program management
practices and to develop and maintain requirements for the
acquisition of IT infrastructure and common applications
commonly used by various Federal agencies.
``(b) Organization of Center.--
``(1) Membership.--The Center shall consist of the
following members:
``(A) An appropriate number, as determined by the CIO
Council, but not less than 12, full-time program managers or
cost specialists, all of whom have appropriate experience in
the private or Government sector in managing or overseeing
acquisitions of IT infrastructure and common applications.
``(B) At least 1 full-time detailee from each of the
Federal agencies listed in section 901(b) of title 31,
nominated by the respective agency chief information officer
for a detail period of not less than 2 years.
``(2) Working groups.--The Collaboration Center shall have
working groups that specialize in IT infrastructure and
common applications identified by the CIO Council. Each
working group shall be headed by a separate dedicated program
manager appointed by the Federal Chief Information Officer.
``(c) Capabilities and Functions of the Collaboration
Center.--For each of the IT infrastructure and common
application areas identified by the CIO Council, the
Collaboration Center shall perform the following roles, and
any other functions as directed by the Federal Chief
Information Officer:
``(1) Develop, maintain, and disseminate requirements
suitable to establish contracts that will meet the common and
general needs of various Federal agencies as determined by
the Center. In doing so, the Center shall give maximum
consideration to the adoption of commercial standards and
industry acquisition best practices, including opportunities
for shared services, consideration of total cost of
ownership, preference for industry-neutral functional
specifications leveraging open industry standards and
competition, and use of long-term contracts, as appropriate.
``(2) Develop, maintain, and disseminate reliable cost
estimates that are accurate, comprehensive, well-documented,
and credible.
``(3) Lead the review of significant or troubled IT
investments or acquisitions as identified by the CIO Council.

[[Page H3612]]

``(4) Provide expert aid to troubled IT investments or
acquisitions.
``(d) Guidance.--The Director, in consultation with the
Chief Information Officers Council, shall issue guidance
addressing the scope and operation of the Collaboration
Center. The guidance shall require that the Collaboration
Center report to the Federal Chief Information Officer.
``(e) Report to Congress.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall annually submit to
the relevant congressional committees a report detailing the
organization, staff, and activities of the Collaboration
Center, including--
``(A) a list of IT infrastructure and common applications
the Center assisted;
``(B) an assessment of the Center's achievement in
promoting efficiency, shared services, and elimination of
unnecessary Government requirements that are contrary to
commercial best practices; and
``(C) the use and expenditure of amounts in the Fund
established under subsection (i).
``(2) Inclusion in other report.--The report may be
included as part of the annual E-Government status report
required under section 3606 of title 44.
``(f) Improvement of the Governmentwide Software Purchasing
Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Collaboration Center, in
collaboration with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy,
the Department of Defense, and the General Services
Administration, shall identify and develop a strategic
sourcing initiative to enhance Governmentwide acquisition,
shared use, and dissemination of software, as well as
compliance with end user license agreements.
``(2) Examination of methods.--In developing the initiative
under paragraph (1), the Collaboration Center shall examine
the use of realistic and effective demand aggregation models
supported by actual agency commitment to use the models, and
supplier relationship management practices, to more
effectively govern the Government's acquisition of
information technology.
``(3) Governmentwide user license agreement.--The
Collaboration Center, in developing the initiative under
paragraph (1), shall allow for the purchase of a license
agreement that is available for use by all executive agencies
as one user to the maximum extent practicable and as
appropriate.
``(g) Guidelines for Acquisition of It Infrastructure and
Common Applications.--
``(1) Guidelines.--The Collaboration Center shall establish
guidelines that, to the maximum extent possible, eliminate
inconsistent practices among executive agencies and ensure
uniformity and consistency in acquisition processes for IT
infrastructure and common applications across the Federal
Government.
``(2) Central website.--In preparing the guidelines, the
Collaboration Center, in consultation with the Chief
Acquisition Officers Council, shall offer executive agencies
the option of accessing a central website for best practices,
templates, and other relevant information.
``(h) Pricing Transparency.--The Collaboration Center, in
collaboration with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy,
the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the General Services
Administration, and the Assisted Acquisition Centers of
Excellence, shall compile a price list and catalogue
containing current pricing information by vendor for each of
its IT infrastructure and common applications categories. The
price catalogue shall contain any price provided by a vendor
for the same or similar good or service to any executive
agency. The catalogue shall be developed in a fashion
ensuring that it may be used for pricing comparisons and
pricing analysis using standard data formats. The price
catalogue shall not be made public, but shall be accessible
to executive agencies.
``(i) Federal It Acquisition Management Improvement Fund.--
``(1) Establishment and management of fund.--There is a
Federal IT Acquisition Management Improvement Fund (in this
subsection referred to as the `Fund'). The Administrator of
General Services shall manage the Fund through the
Collaboration Center to support the activities of the
Collaboration Center carried out pursuant to this section.
The Administrator of General Services shall consult with the
Director in managing the Fund.
``(2) Credits to fund.--Five percent of the fees collected
by executive agencies under the following contracts shall be
credited to the Fund:
``(A) Governmentwide task and delivery order contracts
entered into under sections 4103 and 4105 of title 41.
``(B) Governmentwide contracts for the acquisition of
information technology and multiagency acquisition contracts
for that technology authorized by section 11314 of this
title.
``(C) Multiple-award schedule contracts entered into by the
Administrator of General Services.
``(3) Remittance by head of executive agency.--The head of
an executive agency that administers a contract described in
paragraph (2) shall remit to the General Services
Administration the amount required to be credited to the Fund
with respect to the contract at the end of each quarter of
the fiscal year.
``(4) Amounts not to be used for other purposes.--The
Administrator of General Services, through the Office of
Management and Budget, shall ensure that amounts collected
under this subsection are not used for a purpose other than
the activities of the Collaboration Center carried out
pursuant to this section.
``(5) Availability of amounts.--Amounts credited to the
Fund remain available to be expended only in the fiscal year
for which they are credited and the 4 succeeding fiscal
years.
``(j) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Executive agency.--The term `executive agency' has
the meaning provided that term by section 105 of title 5.
``(2) Federal chief information officer.--The term `Federal
Chief Information Officer' means the Administrator of the
Office of Electronic Government established under section
3602 of title 44.
``(3) Governmentwide contract vehicle.--The term
`Governmentwide contract vehicle' means any contract, blanket
purchase agreement, or other contractual instrument that
allows for an indefinite number of orders to be placed within
the contract, agreement, or instrument, and that is
established by one executive agency for use by multiple
executive agencies to obtain supplies and services.
``(4) Relevant congressional committees.--The term
`relevant congressional committees' means each of the
following:
``(A) The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives.
``(B) The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
``(k) Revision of Far.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation
shall be amended to implement this section.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The item relating to chapter 115
in the table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle III of
title 40, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``115. Information Technology Acquisition Management Practi11501''.....

(b) Deadlines.--
(1) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Director shall issue guidance under section
11501(d) of title 40, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a).
(2) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Director shall establish the Federal
Infrastructure and Common Application Collaboration Center,
in accordance with section 11501(a) of such title, as so
added.
(3) Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Federal Infrastructure and Common
Application Collaboration Center shall--
(A) identify and develop a strategic sourcing initiative in
accordance with section 11501(f) of such title, as so added;
and
(B) establish guidelines in accordance with section
11501(g) of such title, as so added.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3602(c) of title 44,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph (3):
``(3) all of the functions of the Federal Infrastructure
and Common Application Collaboration Center, as required
under section 11501 of title 40; and''.

SEC. 5402. DESIGNATION OF ASSISTED ACQUISITION CENTERS OF
EXCELLENCE.

(a) Designation.--Chapter 115 of title 40, United States
Code, as amended by section 5401, is further amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 11502. Assisted Acquisition Centers of Excellence

``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to develop
specialized assisted acquisition centers of excellence within
the Federal Government to promote--
``(1) the effective use of best acquisition practices;
``(2) the development of specialized expertise in the
acquisition of information technology; and
``(3) Governmentwide sharing of acquisition capability to
augment any shortage in the information technology
acquisition workforce.
``(b) Designation of AACEs.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this section, and every 3 years
thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, in consultation with the Chief Acquisition Officers
Council and the Chief Information Officers Council, shall
designate, redesignate, or withdraw the designation of
acquisition centers of excellence within various executive
agencies to carry out the functions set forth in subsection
(c) in an area of specialized acquisition expertise as
determined by the Director. Each such center of excellence
shall be known as an `Assisted Acquisition Center of
Excellence' or an `AACE'.
``(c) Functions.--The functions of each AACE are as
follows:
``(1) Best practices.--To promote, develop, and implement
the use of best acquisition practices in the area of
specialized acquisition expertise that the AACE is designated
to carry out by the Director under subsection (b).
``(2) Assisted acquisitions.--To assist all Government
agencies in the expedient and low-cost acquisition of the
information technology goods or services covered by such area
of specialized acquisition expertise by

[[Page H3613]]

engaging in repeated and frequent acquisition of similar
information technology requirements.
``(3) Development and training of it acquisition
workforce.--To assist in recruiting and training IT
acquisition cadres (referred to in section 1704(j) of title
41).
``(d) Criteria.--In designating, redesignating, or
withdrawing the designation of an AACE, the Director shall
consider, at a minimum, the following matters:
``(1) The subject matter expertise of the host agency in a
specific area of information technology acquisition.
``(2) For acquisitions of IT infrastructure and common
applications covered by the Federal Infrastructure and Common
Application Collaboration Center established under section
11501 of this title, the ability and willingness to
collaborate with the Collaboration Center and adhere to the
requirements standards established by the Collaboration
Center.
``(3) The ability of an AACE to develop customized
requirements documents that meet the needs of executive
agencies as well as the current industry standards and
commercial best practices.
``(4) The ability of an AACE to consistently award and
manage various contracts, task or delivery orders, and other
acquisition arrangements in a timely, cost-effective, and
compliant manner.
``(5) The ability of an AACE to aggregate demands from
multiple executive agencies for similar information
technology goods or services and fulfill those demands in one
acquisition.
``(6) The ability of an AACE to acquire innovative or
emerging commercial and noncommercial technologies using
various contracting methods, including ways to lower the
entry barriers for small businesses with limited Government
contracting experiences.
``(7) The ability of an AACE to maximize commercial item
acquisition, effectively manage high-risk contract types,
increase competition, promote small business participation,
and maximize use of available Governmentwide contract
vehicles.
``(8) The existence of an in-house cost estimating group
with expertise to consistently develop reliable cost
estimates that are accurate, comprehensive, well-documented,
and credible.
``(9) The ability of an AACE to employ best practices and
educate requesting agencies, to the maximum extent
practicable, regarding critical factors underlying successful
major IT acquisitions, including the following factors:
``(A) Active engagement by program officials with
stakeholders.
``(B) Possession by program staff of the necessary
knowledge and skills.
``(C) Support of the programs by senior department and
agency executives.
``(D) Involvement by end users and stakeholders in the
development of requirements.
``(E) Participation by end users in testing of system
functionality prior to formal end user acceptance testing.
``(F) Stability and consistency of Government and
contractor staff.
``(G) Prioritization of requirements by program staff.
``(H) Maintenance of regular communication with the prime
contractor by program officials.
``(I) Receipt of sufficient funding by programs.
``(10) The ability of an AACE to run an effective
acquisition intern program in collaboration with the Federal
Acquisition Institute or the Defense Acquisition University.
``(11) The ability of an AACE to effectively and properly
manage fees received for assisted acquisitions pursuant to
this section.
``(e) Funds Received by AACEs.--
``(1) Availability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law or regulation, funds obligated and transferred from an
executive agency in a fiscal year to an AACE for the
acquisition of goods or services covered by an area of
specialized acquisition expertise of an AACE, regardless of
whether the requirements are severable or non-severable,
shall remain available for awards of contracts by the AACE
for the same general requirements for the next 5 fiscal years
following the fiscal year in which the funds were
transferred.
``(2) Transition to new aace.--If the AACE to which the
funds are provided under paragraph (1) becomes unable to
fulfill the requirements of the executive agency from which
the funds were provided, the funds may be provided to a
different AACE to fulfill such requirements. The funds so
provided shall be used for the same purpose and remain
available for the same period of time as applied when
provided to the original AACE.
``(3) Relationship to existing authorities.--This
subsection does not limit any existing authorities an AACE
may have under its revolving or working capital funds
authorities.
``(f) Government Accountability Office Review of AACE.--
``(1) Review.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall review and assess--
``(A) the use and management of fees received by the AACEs
pursuant to this section to ensure that an appropriate fee
structure is established and enforced to cover activities
addressed in this section and that no excess fees are charged
or retained; and
``(B) the effectiveness of the AACEs in achieving the
purpose described in subsection (a), including review of
contracts.
``(2) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the designation
or redesignation of AACES under subsection (b), the
Comptroller General shall submit to the relevant
congressional committees a report containing the findings and
assessment under paragraph (1).
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Assisted acquisition.--The term `assisted
acquisition' means a type of interagency acquisition in which
the parties enter into an interagency agreement pursuant to
which--
``(A) the servicing agency performs acquisition activities
on the requesting agency's behalf, such as awarding,
administering, or closing out a contract, task order,
delivery order, or blanket purchase agreement; and
``(B) funding is provided through a franchise fund, the
Acquisition Services Fund in section 321 of this title,
sections 1535 and 1536 of title 31, or other available
methods.
``(2) Executive agency.--The term `executive agency' has
the meaning provided that term by section 133 of title 41.
``(3) Relevant congressional committees.--The term
`relevant congressional committees' has the meaning provided
that term by section 11501 of this title.
``(h) Revision of Far.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation
shall be amended to implement this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 115 of title 40, United States Code, as
amended by section 5401, is further amended by adding at the
end the following new item:

``11502. Assisted Acquisition Centers of Excellence.''.

Subtitle B--Strengthening IT Acquisition Workforce

SEC. 5411. EXPANSION OF TRAINING AND USE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION CADRES.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure
timely progress by Federal agencies toward developing,
strengthening, and deploying personnel with highly
specialized skills in information technology acquisition,
including program and project managers, to be known as
information technology acquisition cadres.
(b) Report to Congress.--Section 1704 of title 41, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(j) Strategic Plan on Information Technology Acquisition
Cadres.--
``(1) Five-year strategic plan to congress.--Not later than
June 1 following the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the Director shall submit to the relevant
congressional committees a 5-year strategic plan (to be known
as the `IT Acquisition Cadres Strategic Plan') to develop,
strengthen, and solidify information technology acquisition
cadres. The plan shall include a timeline for implementation
of the plan and identification of individuals responsible for
specific elements of the plan during the 5-year period
covered by the plan.
``(2) Matters covered.--The plan shall address, at a
minimum, the following matters:
``(A) Current information technology acquisition staffing
challenges in Federal agencies, by previous year's
information technology acquisition value, and by the Federal
Government as a whole.
``(B) The variety and complexity of information technology
acquisitions conducted by each Federal agency covered by the
plan, and the specialized information technology acquisition
workforce needed to effectively carry out such acquisitions.
``(C) The development of a sustainable funding model to
support efforts to hire, retain, and train an information
technology acquisition cadre of appropriate size and skill to
effectively carry out the acquisition programs of the Federal
agencies covered by the plan, including an examination of
interagency funding methods and a discussion of how the model
of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund could
be applied to civilian agencies.
``(D) Any strategic human capital planning necessary to
hire, retain, and train an information acquisition cadre of
appropriate size and skill at each Federal agency covered by
the plan.
``(E) Governmentwide training standards and certification
requirements necessary to enhance the mobility and career
opportunities of the Federal information technology
acquisition cadre within the Federal agencies covered by the
plan.
``(F) New and innovative approaches to workforce
development and training, including cross-functional
training, rotational development, and assignments both within
and outside the Government.
``(G) Appropriate consideration and alignment with the
needs and priorities of the Infrastructure and Common
Application Collaboration Center, Assisted Acquisition
Centers of Excellence, and acquisition intern programs.
``(H) Assessment of the current workforce competency and
usage trends in evaluation technique to obtain best value,
including proper handling of tradeoffs between price and
nonprice factors.
``(I) Assessment of the current workforce competency in
designing and aligning performance goals, life cycle costs,
and contract incentives.

[[Page H3614]]

``(J) Assessment of the current workforce competency in
avoiding brand-name preference and using industry-neutral
functional specifications to leverage open industry standards
and competition.
``(K) Use of integrated program teams, including fully
dedicated program managers, for each complex information
technology investment.
``(L) Proper assignment of recognition or accountability to
the members of an integrated program team for both individual
functional goals and overall program success or failure.
``(M) The development of a technology fellows program that
includes provisions for recruiting, for rotation of
assignments, and for partnering directly with universities
with well-recognized information technology programs.
``(N) The capability to properly manage other transaction
authority (where such authority is granted), including
ensuring that the use of the authority is warranted due to
unique technical challenges, rapid adoption of innovative or
emerging commercial or noncommercial technologies, or other
circumstances that cannot readily be satisfied using a
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement in accordance with
applicable law and the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
``(O) The use of student internship and scholarship
programs as a talent pool for permanent hires and the use and
impact of special hiring authorities and flexibilities to
recruit diverse candidates.
``(P) The assessment of hiring manager satisfaction with
the hiring process and hiring outcomes, including
satisfaction with the quality of applicants interviewed and
hires made.
``(Q) The assessment of applicant satisfaction with the
hiring process, including the clarity of the hiring
announcement, the user-friendliness of the application
process, communication from the hiring manager or agency
regarding application status, and timeliness of the hiring
decision.
``(R) The assessment of new hire satisfaction with the
onboarding process, including the orientation process, and
investment in training and development for employees during
their first year of employment.
``(S) Any other matters the Director considers appropriate.
``(3) Annual report.--Not later than June 1 in each of the
5 years following the year of submission of the plan required
by paragraph (1), the Director shall submit to the relevant
congressional committees an annual report outlining the
progress made pursuant to the plan.
``(4) Government accountability office review of the plan
and annual report.--
``(A) Not later than 1 year after the submission of the
plan required by paragraph (1), the Comptroller General of
the United States shall review the plan and submit to the
relevant congressional committees a report on the review.
``(B) Not later than 6 months after the submission of the
first, third, and fifth annual report required under
paragraph (3), the Comptroller General shall independently
assess the findings of the annual report and brief the
relevant congressional committees on the Comptroller
General's findings and recommendations to ensure the
objectives of the plan are accomplished.
``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) The term `Federal agency' means each agency listed in
section 901(b) of title 31.
``(B) The term `relevant congressional committees' means
each of the following:
``(i) The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives.
``(ii) The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.''.

SEC. 5412. PLAN ON STRENGTHENING PROGRAM AND PROJECT
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE.

(a) Plan on Strengthening Program and Project Management
Performance.--Not later than June 1 following the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director, in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management, shall submit
to the relevant congressional committees a plan for improving
management of IT programs and projects.
(b) Matters Covered.--The plan required by subsection (a)
shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Creation of a specialized career path for program
management.
(2) The development of a competency model for program
management consistent with the IT project manager model.
(3) A career advancement model that requires appropriate
expertise and experience for advancement.
(4) A career advancement model that is more competitive
with the private sector and that recognizes both Government
and private sector experience.
(5) Appropriate consideration and alignment with the needs
and priorities of the Infrastructure and Common Application
Collaboration Center, the Assisted Acquisition Centers of
Excellence, and acquisition intern programs.
(c) Combination With Other Cadres Plan.--The Director may
combine the plan required by subsection (a) with the IT
Acquisition Cadres Strategic Plan required under section
1704(j) of title 41, United States Code, as added by section
411.

SEC. 5413. PERSONNEL AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN THE ACQUISITION
OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management shall develop policy and guidance for
agencies to develop a program to recognize excellent
performance by Federal Government employees and teams of such
employees in the acquisition of information systems and
information technology for the agency.
(b) Elements.--The program referred to in subsection (a)
shall, to the extent practicable--
(1) obtain objective outcome measures; and
(2) include procedures for--
(A) the nomination of Federal Government employees and
teams of such employees for eligibility for recognition under
the program; and
(B) the evaluation of nominations for recognition under the
program by 1 or more agency panels of individuals from
Government, academia, and the private sector who have such
expertise, and are appointed in such a manner, as the
Director of the Office of Personal Management shall establish
for purposes of the program.
(c) Award of Cash Bonuses and Other Incentives.--In
carrying out the program referred to in subsection (a), the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, shall establish policies and guidance for
agencies to reward any Federal Government employee or teams
of such employees recognized pursuant to the program--
(1) with a cash bonus, to the extent that the performance
of such individual or team warrants the award of such bonus
and is authorized by any provision of law;
(2) through promotions and other nonmonetary awards;
(3) by publicizing--
(A) acquisition accomplishments by individual employees;
and
(B) the tangible end benefits that resulted from such
accomplishments, as appropriate; and
(4) through other awards, incentives, or bonuses that the
head of the agency considers appropriate.

TITLE LV--ADDITIONAL REFORMS

SEC. 5501. MAXIMIZING THE BENEFIT OF THE FEDERAL STRATEGIC
SOURCING INITIATIVE.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy
shall prescribe regulations providing that when the Federal
Government makes a purchase of services and supplies offered
under the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (managed by
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy) but such Initiative
is not used, the contract file for the purchase shall include
a brief analysis of the comparative value, including price
and nonprice factors, between the services and supplies
offered under such Initiative and services and supplies
offered under the source or sources used for the purchase.

SEC. 5502. PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY OF BLANKET PURCHASE
AGREEMENTS.

(a) Price Information to Be Treated as Public
Information.--The final negotiated price offered by an
awardee of a blanket purchase agreement shall be treated as
public information.
(b) Publication of Blanket Purchase Agreement
Information.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services
shall make available to the public a list of all blanket
purchase agreements entered into by Federal agencies under
its Federal Supply Schedules contracts and the prices
associated with those blanket purchase agreements. The list
and price information shall be updated at least once every 6
months.

SEC. 5503. ADDITIONAL SOURCE SELECTION TECHNIQUE IN
SOLICITATIONS.

Section 3306(d) of title 41, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking the period and inserting ``; or'' at the
end of paragraph (2); and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) stating in the solicitation that the award will be
made using a fixed price technical competition, under which
all offerors compete solely on nonprice factors and the fixed
award price is pre-announced in the solicitation.''.

SEC. 5504. ENHANCED TRANSPARENCY IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
INVESTMENTS.

(a) Public Availability of Information About It
Investments.--Section 11302(c) of title 40, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Public availability.--
``(A) In general.--The Director shall make available to the
public the cost, schedule, and performance data for at least
80 percent (by dollar value) of all information technology
investments Governmentwide, and 60 percent (by dollar value)
of all information technology investments in each Federal
agency listed in section 901(b) of title 31, notwithstanding
whether the investments are for new IT acquisitions or for
operations and maintenance of existing IT. The Director shall
ensure that the information is current, accurate, and
reflects the risks associated

[[Page H3615]]

with each covered information technology investment.
``(B) Waiver or limitation authority.--The applicability of
subparagraph (A) may be waived or the extent of the
information may be limited--
``(i) by the Director, with respect to IT investments
Governmentwide; and
``(ii) by the Chief Information Officer of a Federal
agency, with respect to IT investments in that agency;

if the Director or the Chief Information Officer, as the case
may be, determines that such a waiver or limitation is in the
national security interests of the United States.''.
(b) Additional Report Requirements.--Paragraph (3) of
section 11302(c) of such title, as redesignated by subsection
(a), is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
report shall include an analysis of agency trends reflected
in the performance risk information required in paragraph
(2).''.

SEC. 5505. ENHANCED COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND
INDUSTRY.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall
prescribe a regulation making clear that agency acquisition
personnel are permitted and encouraged to engage in
responsible and constructive exchanges with industry, so long
as those exchanges are consistent with existing law and
regulation and do not promote an unfair competitive advantage
to particular firms.

SEC. 5506. CLARIFICATION OF CURRENT LAW WITH RESPECT TO
TECHNOLOGY NEUTRALITY IN ACQUISITION OF
SOFTWARE.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish
guidance and processes to clarify that software acquisitions
by the Federal Government are to be made using merit-based
requirements development and evaluation processes that
promote procurement choices--
(1) based on performance and value, including the long-term
value proposition to the Federal Government;
(2) free of preconceived preferences based on how
technology is developed, licensed, or distributed; and
(3) generally including the consideration of proprietary,
open source, and mixed source software technologies.
(b) Technology Neutrality.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to modify the Federal Government's long-standing
policy of following technology-neutral principles and
practices when selecting and acquiring information technology
that best fits the needs of the Federal Government.
(c) Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director, in consultation with
the Chief Information Officers Council, shall issue guidance
concerning the technology-neutral procurement and use of
software within the Federal Government.
(d) Matters Covered.--In issuing guidance under subsection
(c), the Director shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Guidance to clarify that the preference for commercial
items in section 3307 of title 41, United States Code,
includes proprietary, open source, and mixed source software
that meets the definition of the term ``commercial item'' in
section 103 of title 41, United States Code, including all
such software that is used for non-Government purposes and is
licensed to the public.
(2) Guidance regarding the conduct of market research to
ensure the inclusion of proprietary, open source, and mixed
source software options.
(3) Guidance to define Governmentwide standards for
security, redistribution, indemnity, and copyright in the
acquisition, use, release, and collaborative development of
proprietary, open source, and mixed source software.
(4) Guidance for the adoption of available commercial
practices to acquire proprietary, open source, and mixed
source software for widespread Government use, including
issues such as security and redistribution rights.
(5) Guidance to establish standard service level agreements
for maintenance and support for proprietary, open source, and
mixed source software products widely adopted by the
Government, as well as the development of Governmentwide
agreements that contain standard and widely applicable
contract provisions for ongoing maintenance and development
of software.
(6) Guidance on the role and use of the Federal
Infrastructure and Common Application Collaboration Center,
established pursuant to section 11501 of title 40, United
States Code (as added by section 5401), for acquisition of
proprietary, open source, and mixed source software.
(e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
issuance of the guidance required by subsection (b), the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the
relevant congressional committees a report containing--
(1) an assessment of the effectiveness of the guidance;
(2) an identification of barriers to widespread use by the
Federal Government of specific software technologies; and
(3) such legislative recommendations as the Comptroller
General considers appropriate to further the purposes of this
section.

amendment no. 170 offered by mr. garamendi of california

At the end of subtitle C of title XV, add the following new
section:

SEC. 15_. LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR THE AFGHANISTAN SECURITY
FORCES FUND TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN AIRCRAFT,
VEHICLES, AND EQUIPMENT.

(a) Limitation.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated
by this Act to the Department of Defense for the Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund (ASFF), $2,600,000,000 shall be withheld
from obligation and expenditure until the Secretary of
Defense submits to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate a report as described in subsection (b).
(b) Report.--The report referred to in subsection (a) is a
report that includes the following information:
(1) A list of all covered aircraft, vehicles, and equipment
to be purchased with funds authorized to be appropriated by
this Act to the Department of Defense for the ASFF.
(2) The expected date on which such covered aircraft,
vehicles, and equipment would be delivered and operable in
Afghanistan.
(3) The full requirements for operating such covered
aircraft, vehicles, and equipment.
(4) The plan for maintenance of such covered aircraft,
vehicles, and equipment and estimated costs of such covered
aircraft, vehicles, and equipment by year, through 2020.
(5) The expected date that ASFF personnel would be fully
capable of operating and maintaining such covered aircraft,
vehicles, and equipment without support from United States
personnel.
(6) An explanation of the extent to which the acquisition
of such covered aircraft, vehicles, and equipment will impact
the longer-term United States costs of supporting the ASFF.
(c) Covered Aircraft, Vehicles, and Equipment.--In this
section, the term ``covered aircraft, vehicles, and
equipment'' means helicopters, systems for close air support,
air mobility systems, and armored vehicles.

amendment no. 171 offered by mr. gingrey of georgia

At the end of subtitle I of title X of division A, add the
following:

SEC. 1090. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRESERVATION OF SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY
PERSONNEL STATIONED OR RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
(2) Approximately 40,000 servicemen and women across all
branches of the Armed Forces either live in or are stationed
on active duty within the Washington, D.C., metropolitan
area. Unless these individuals are granted a waiver as
serving in a law enforcement role, they are subject to the
District of Columbia's onerous and highly restrictive laws on
the possession of firearms.
(3) Military personnel, despite being extensively trained
in the proper and safe use of firearms, are therefore
deprived by the laws of the District of Columbia of handguns,
rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding
persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for
lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and
families.
(4) The District of Columbia has one of the highest per
capita murder rates in the Nation, which may be attributed in
part to previous local laws prohibiting possession of
firearms by law-abiding persons who would have otherwise been
able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own
homes and businesses.
(5) The Gun Control Act of 1968 (as amended by the Firearms
Owners' Protection Act) and the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act provide comprehensive Federal regulations
applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In
addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish
possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals
and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws
that only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.
(6) On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller held
that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to
possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, and thus
ruled that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and
requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept
unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock to
be unconstitutional.
(7) On July 16, 2008, the District of Columbia enacted the
Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act
17-422; 55 DCR 8237), which places onerous restrictions on
the ability of law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms,
thus violating the spirit by which the Supreme Court of the
United States ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller.
(8) On February 26, 2009, the United States Senate adopted
an amendment on a bipartisan vote of 62-36 by Senator John
Ensign to S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting
Rights Act of 2009, which would fully restore Second
Amendment rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
active duty military personnel who are stationed or residing
in the District of Columbia should be permitted to exercise
fully their rights under the Second Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States and therefore should be
exempt from

[[Page H3616]]

the District of Columbia's restrictions on the possession of
firearms.

amendment no. 172 offered by mrs. davis of california

At the end of subtitle A of title VI, add the following new
section:

SEC. 6__. RECOGNITION OF ADDITIONAL MEANS BY WHICH MEMBERS OF
THE NATIONAL GUARD CALLED INTO FEDERAL SERVICE
FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS OR LESS MAY INITIALLY
REPORT FOR DUTY FOR ENTITLEMENT TO BASIC PAY.

Section 204(c) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``date when he
appears at the place of company rendezvous'' and inserting
``date on which the member, in person or by authorized
telephonic or electronic means, contacts the member's unit'';
and
(2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following new sentence: ``However, this subsection does not
authorize any expenditure before the member makes authorized
contact that is not authorized by law to be paid after such
authorized contact.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Smith) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments
en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the
minority.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment is not controversial, but it's critical. At a time when
over $80 billion is spent and over 10 percent of it goes completely
wasted on information technology purchases by the government, there has
never been a more important time to update the legendary, historic
Clinger-Cohen Act. That Act in 1996 was attached to the NDAA, exactly
as this one is, and it created the positions of Chief Information
Officers to oversee IT management.

{time} 1040

1996 was a time in which you could still have an IBM AT 286 computer
on your desk. The idea of cloud servers didn't exist, and the size and
scope and dependency on the cyber environment was never even
anticipated.
So as we modernize this act, I would ask to both have it considered
as important, but also have it recognized as critically necessary.
One of the most important things and something that makes common
sense to the people who may hear this today or read it in the
transcript is that we have more chief information officers today than
we have departments, and all but one have no budget authority.
This legislation, when enacted, will eliminate that. It will
eliminate duplicative IT purchases that give us overruns of as much as
20 percent in our purchasing of licenses, but it also will put real
meaning behind the term ``chief information officer.'' Never again will
someone have that title and have no budget authority or responsibility.
When a program goes right, the chief information officer is
responsible; when a program goes awry, it's his or her job to make it
right.
Once again, I urge support for a bill that was considered, numerous
hearings were held, and it was passed unanimously out of my committee.

FEDERAL IT ACQUISITION REFORM ACT (FITARA) AMENDMENT TO NDAA

My amendment is a modified version of a bill reported from my
committee unanimously in March. It reforms--Government-wide--the
process by which federal information technology is acquired.
It is particularly fitting that this reform be included in the
defense authorization bill. First, because majority of the Government's
annual $80 billion in federal IT purchases is defense-related. Second,
because this reform is a major update to a federal IT law originally
enacted as part of a defense authorization bill--the Fiscal Year 1996
National Defense Authorization Act.
The 1996 NDAA included the Information Technology Management Reform
Act--popularly known as Clinger-Cohen Act. It changed the way the
federal government managed its IT resources--for instance by creating
agency Chief Information Officers to oversee IT management.
Upon the introduction of this historic legislation, Chairman Clinger
said,

``From the time the Second Continental Congress established
a Commissary General in 1775, the procurement system has
commanded the attention of both public officials and the
American taxpayer. Unfortunately and all too often, the
attention has focused on individual abuses rather than the
overall system. Over the years, in response to these horror
stories, Congress passed many laws--long and short,
significant and trivial, new and old which standing alone
were not overly harmful, but when added together created an
increasingly overburdened mass of statutory requirements.
In December 1994, a report prepared for the Secretary of
Defense found that, on average, the Government pays an
additional 18 percent on what it buys solely because of the
requirements it imposes on its contractors. This confirmed
the average estimate by major contractors surveyed by GAO
that the additional costs incurred in selling to the
Government are about 19 percent. While some of the
Government's unique requirements certainly are needed, we
clearly are paying an enormous premium for them--billions of
dollars annually.
And this is only part of the Government's inflated cost of
doing business--for it includes only what is paid to
contractors, not the cost of the Government's own
administrative system. The Government's contracting officials
are confronted with numerous mandates of their own, often
amounting to step-by-step prescriptions that increase staff
and equipment needs, and leave little room for the exercise
of business judgment, initiative, and creativity.''

Many of his sentiments are still applicable today. Since the mid-
Nineties, technology has leaped forward, and the federal government's
spending on IT procurement has tripled. So my amendment--the
Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act--updates Clinger-Cohen,
with an emphasis on reforming the way the federal government purchases
IT products and services.
GAO has identified duplicative IT investment as a problem in its
annual reports to Congress on duplication. IT acquisition program
failure rates and cost overruns are between 72 and 80%. Some estimate
as much as $20 billion is wasted annually in this area.
We need to enhance the best value to the taxpayer by aligning the
cumbersome federal acquisition process to major trends in the IT
industry.
This amendment accomplishes this by empowering agency CIO's with
budget authority over IT programs. It establishes centers of excellence
in specific areas of IT procurement to develop expertise and leverage
the Government's economy of scale in purchasing commonly-used IT
products and services, so that agencies buy cheaper, faster and
smarter. It accelerates consolidation and optimization of the Federal
Government's proliferating data centers. And it ensures procurement
decisions give due consideration to all technologies--including open
source--and that contracts are awarded based on best long-term value
proposition.
A discussion draft of the FITARA bill was posted last September. I
held two full committee hearings on the bill, and the language has
evolved through the course of several rewrites and extensive feedback
from contracting and technology experts from inside and outside
Government.
This is a significant and timely reform that will enhance both
defense and non-defense procurement. I urge all members to support this
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I
appreciate the leadership for including this amendment in the en bloc
amendment.
It is important that we deal with improving the quality of life for
our servicemembers and their families.
In a situation all too familiar for our military families, every few
years they find themselves living in a new military base with their
children having to start a new school and having to adapt to a new
environment. Making this transition even more difficult, their loved
ones could be serving in Iraq or Afghanistan in constant danger.
This is an effort to make sure that we help our military
installations include things that enhance the livability of that
environment, to help with green space, public gardens, sidewalks, bike
and running trails, things that are recognized in urban development as
important amenities that add value and quality of life, while also
helping the Department of Defense adapt best practices to build
military bases to promote close-knit communities that work for
families, which is critical.
I appreciate the progress that's been made and the committee working
with us to make sure that this is enhanced as we move forward.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for the purpose of a colloquy.

[[Page H3617]]

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise today to engage my friend, Chairman McKeon, in a
colloquy regarding the Defense Contract Audit Agency, or DCAA, and
express concerns about the potential overreach of its authority.
The DCAA plays a critical role in our contracting system. As such, in
recent years, Congress has provided substantial human and financial
resources to address its well-documented workload backlog and other
challenges. I am in favor of such resources and encourage DCAA to focus
on eliminating the backlog. However, it appears that DCAA may be
broadly accessing a myriad of contractor documents that have little or
no impact on determining the effectiveness of contractor business
systems.
The FY13 National Defense Authorization Act contained a provision,
section 832, which set parameters for DCAA's access to the internal
audits of companies that provide goods and services to the Department
of Defense. Specifically, it is my understanding the committee was
focused on contractors' business systems and ensuring robust and
independent internal audit controls to those systems. However, it
appears DCAA is broadly interpreting section 832 as providing DCAA with
the authority to access all contractor internal audits and supporting
documents. This is concerning on many levels.
I would ask the chairman if he has considered the potentially
chilling effect on a company's desire to maintain a robust internal
audit program if the government is demanding unfettered access to
information they may not need or may potentially misuse. This is
especially worrisome when this overreach extends to the very
proprietary data that makes these companies competitive in the
marketplace.
I thank the chairman for his leadership and ask if he shares my
concerns regarding the potential overreach of DCAA in this area.
Mr. McKEON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. I thank my friend for bringing up this important issue.
As you are aware, we did not reopen the issue in the current bill.
However, I share your concerns and would hope that DCAA is not
overreaching on its authority. The potential for DCAA to misuse
corporate internal audits or to go fishing through these audits without
understanding their context or purpose is very concerning. The
committee is continuing to monitor their implementation of access to
company internal audits and is willing to take additional action if we
determine DCAA is acting beyond the limited grant of authority that
Congress provided.
Again, thank you for raising this important issue.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Swalwell).
Mr. SWALWELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
First, I also want to thank my friend, Congressman Pat Meehan, for
cosponsoring my amendment.
Due to sequestration, the Department of Defense has not been allowing
military bands to perform at community events, even when the sponsoring
community organization pays for all associated expenses, because the
Department of Defense is saying that the reimbursement is never
credited to the proper account.
Well, this is hard to believe. First, because it's been going on
before, where community events have reimbursed the Department of
Defense and there have not been any problems that we've been aware of.
But since sequestration, they're now saying it cannot be done. Well,
this is a civilian force of over 700,000 people. I'm sure that we can
find a way to make this work and support our community events.
My amendment is simple. It will allow military bands to perform at
community events when the hosting organization fully funds the band's
expenditures by ensuring that the money from the hosting organization
is returned to the relevant department's accounts.
This issue came to my attention when a Marine Corps veteran from my
district in Pleasanton, California, Brooks Wilson, informed me that at
this year's 148th Scottish Gathering and Games in Pleasanton, the
Marine Corps band wouldn't be able to perform, even though his
organization would fully fund the band's expenditure just as they have
always done previously.
Public performances by military bands like the Marine Corps band
bring a sense of patriotism and community to our cities and towns. They
also help enliven events like the Scottish Games, increasing attendance
and helping boost and lift economic activity.
I ask my colleagues to join Congressman Meehan and I in supporting
our military bands and our amendment.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I want to thank the ranking member and
the chair for making my amendment an en bloc amendment.
This amendment deals with the 50-plus billion dollars that we have
spent on the Afghan National Security Forces. An additional $7.7
billion is to be added this year. That is a 50 percent increase over
last year.
The $2.6 billion addition is for equipment with absolutely no
justification, no idea what the equipment is--airplanes, related. There
is no knowledge of whether the Afghan National Security Force can use
it or not. The amendment simply says that money will not be available
until and unless there is clarity as to where the money is going to be
spent, how it's going to be spent, how the equipment will be purchased.
We don't want to write a $2.6 billion blank check for additional graft
and corruption in Afghanistan.
This amendment will be in the en bloc amendment, and I thank the
committee for making it possible.
Mr. McKEON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1050

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my colleague, and I thank the distinguished
chairman of the committee as well.
I want to talk about the FITARA bill, the Federal Information
Technology Acquisition Reform Act, that I am a coauthor of with the
distinguished chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, Mr. Issa. This is the most sweeping reform legislation since
Clinger-Cohen.
Today, Federal IT acquisition is a cumbersome, bureaucratic, and
wasteful exercise. In recent decades, taxpayers have been forced to
foot the bill for massive IT failures that ring up staggeringly high
costs and exhibit astonishingly poor performance. Program failures and
cost overruns plague the vast majority of major Federal IT investments,
while Federal managers report that 47 percent of the budget is spent on
maintaining antiquated and inadequate IT platforms even today. The
annual pricetag of this wasteful spending is estimated at $20 billion a
year.
The Air Force, for example, invested 6 years in a modernization
effort that cost more than $1 billion but failed to deliver a usable
product, promptly its Assistant Secretary to state:
I'm personally appalled at the limited capabilities that program has
produced relative to that amount of investment.
Mission-critical IT investment failures not only waste taxpayer
dollars, but they jeopardize our Nation's safety.
Our bill would modernize, streamline, and make more transparent by
actually posting 80 percent of all acquisitions on the Web site. It
would streamline the decisionmaking process. Right now, the 26 major
Federal agencies, Madam Chairwoman, have over 250 people called CIO,
chief information officers. We would designate one per agency who is
responsible primarily and accountable primarily for IT acquisitions.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I again thank the
distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee and their very

[[Page H3618]]

able staff for cooperating with Chairman Issa and myself on this very
important reform legislation, and I certainly hope when we get to
conference with the Senate it will persevere.
Madam Chair, today, Federal IT acquisition is a cumbersome,
bureaucratic, and wasteful exercise. In recent decades, taxpayers have
been forced to foot the bill for massive IT program failures that ring
up staggeringly high costs, but exhibit astonishingly poor performance.
Program failure and cost overruns still plague the vast majority of
major Federal IT investments, while Federal managers' report that 47
percent of their budget is spent on maintaining antiquated and
inadequate IT platforms. The annual price tag of this wasteful spending
on Federal IT programs is estimated to add up to approximately $20
billion.
The Air Force invested six years in a modernization effort that cost
more than $1 billion, but failed to deliver a usable product, prompting
its Assistant Secretary to state, ``I am personally appalled at the
limited capabilities that program has produced relative to that amount
of investment.''
Mission-critical IT investment failures not only waste taxpayer
dollars, but they jeopardize our Nation's safety, security, and
economy. From malfunctioning Census handheld computers that threatened
to undermine a critical constitutional responsibility, to a promised
electronic border fence that never materialized, time and time again,
agency missions have been sabotaged by failed IT acquisitions.
This status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.
I want to thank Chairman Issa for working with me in a productive and
bipartisan manner to develop Amendment 117, a modified version of H.R.
1232, the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, which
was favorably reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform with unanimous support in March 2013.
Our comprehensive proposal seeks to streamline and strengthen the
Federal IT acquisition process and promote the adoption of best
practices from the technology community. We have solicited extensive
input from all stakeholders to refine and improve our amendment in an
open and transparent manner.
The resulting bipartisan amendment would elevate and empower agency
CIOs with authority over, and accountability for, effectively managing
the IT portfolio. It would also enhance OMB's role, tasking it with
leading enterprise-wide portfolio management, and coordinating shared
services and shared platforms across government.
This bipartisan amendment would also empower agencies to eliminate
duplicative and wasteful IT contracts that have proliferated for
commonly-used, IT Commodity-like investments, such as e-mail. In this
era of austerity, agencies cannot afford to spend precious dollars and
time creating duplicative, wasteful contracts for products and licenses
they already own.
In addition to improving how the government procures IT, this
amendment would also enhance how the government deploys these tools. It
would accelerate data center optimization to achieve greater operating
efficiency and cost-savings, as recommended by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office; provide agencies with flexibility to leverage
efficient cloud services; and strengthen the accountability and
transparency of Federal IT programs. If enacted, 80 percent of the
approximately $80 billion annual Federal IT investment would be
required to be posted on the public IT Dashboard, compared to the 50
percent coverage that exists today.
Consistent with the principle that public contracts are public
documents, our amendment also strengthens transparency in regard to the
final negotiated price a company charges a Federal agency for a good or
service. Today, far too many agencies negotiate blanket purchase
agreements in silos, without any knowledge that another agency has
already negotiated a BPA with the same exact vendor, for the same exact
product, but at a different price.
Nearly two decades after the Information Technology Management Reform
Act and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act were enacted as Division E
and Division D of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996--reforms that are better known today as the foundational
``Clinger-Cohen Act''--a bipartisan consensus is finally forming around
the urgent need to further streamline and strengthen how the Federal
Government acquires and deploys IT.
The bipartisan Issa-Connolly Amendment 117 will enhance the statutory
framework established by Clinger-Cohen to create an efficient and
effective Federal IT procurement system that best serves agencies,
industry, and most importantly, the American taxpayer. I urge all my
colleagues to join me in supporting this important bipartisan reform
measure.
Mr. McKEON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. We have no further speakers, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 5\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm going to use that
time to make up for the time that I lost earlier.
What I would like to do is read the letter from the National Guard
Association of the United States. This is a letter to Chairman McKeon
and Ranking Member Smith, and he says:

As you are aware, there is an amendment sponsored by Reps.
Van Hollen, Moran, Mulvaney, and Woodall that would strip $5
billion out of the Overseas Contingency Operation funding and
the underlying readiness and modernization plus-ups supported
in the bill, which includes $400 million for the National
Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA). This would have
a significant impact on National Guard equipment, as this
funding is critical for new equipment purchases not planned
for or funded by the active components in the President's
budget. We urge you to oppose amendment 39.

Then he goes into some details about what that would mean.
Finally he ends with:

For these reasons, we urge you to oppose amendment 39 to
remove the $5 billion in OCO funds, where National Guard's
NGREA funds are included. Thank you for your attention to
this critical matter.

It is signed Gus Hargett, Major General, U.S. Army, Retired, National
Guard Association.
I think it is very important that we understand fully what we're
talking about in these funds. Congressman Van Hollen referred to
General Dempsey saying this was all the money we needed. Let me just
read to you from the transcript that he was talking to General Dempsey
about in their hearing:

Congressman Van Hollen: General Dempsey, does the OCO
request that was made, in your judgment, satisfy our military
requirement for OCO?
General Dempsey: Yeah, it does. But this year's request
proved inadequate to the task. We have to have some
understanding of trying to predict the future 2 years out.

Let me just go back a couple years. They asked for a certain amount
of money in last year's budget, but they actually spent $10 billion
over that. So they're over-budget coming into this year, and we know,
based on past experience, that they're going to spend more than that.
And then to try to have an amendment to take $5 billion out of that
when we're trying to compensate for the shortfall they had from last
year, and then going into this year, is just irresponsible.
When I was in Afghanistan a couple of months ago, I was meeting with
a commander there, General Dunford, and he said the thing that people
need to understand, as we're winding down this war effort in
Afghanistan, and we have to have the troops out of there by the end of
2014, it's going to cost us more because we're closing down the bigger
bases, and we have to accomplish that this year.
So we've got the commander saying it's going to cost us more, and we
have an amendment saying we should cut $5 billion out. I think it's
important that we really put this all in context and understand how
those troops who are out there today, fighting, going outside the wire
and having attacks on their compounds, are going to be short $5 billion
if this amendment is passed.
There exists a nearly $7 billion shortfall in funding to meet just
the current readiness requirements. The Army alone needs an additional
$3.2 billion beyond what's requested in the President's budget. This is
testimony from the chiefs of these different services. The Marine Corps
needs another $321.6 million. The Navy is funded $1.62 billion below
required levels, and the Air Force $1.3 billion short of needed
funding.
So I needed that time, Madam Chair, those 15 seconds that I thought I
lost earlier.
But I think it's very important that people understand, this will be
one of the most important votes coming up in this next series. We
cannot afford to cut money out for warfighters who are over there
putting their life on the line for us today.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. Madam Chair, today I rise in support of my amendment to

[[Page H3619]]

H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
This amendment gives the land owners and ranchers in the Pinon Canyon
community of Southeast Colorado peace of mind and economic certainty by
requiring Congressional approval in order for the Department of Defense
to expand Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) near Fort Carson, Colorado.
It also requires specific appropriation approval for PCMS expansion.
The passage of this amendment would represent a major step forward in
providing assurance for the people of Southeast Colorado, who for the
last several years have been subjected to a constant state of
uncertainty over possible PCMS expansion into their lands. Despite an
annual funding ban placed on the Department of the Army that
effectively prohibits the expansion of the boundaries of PCMS, my
constituents wonder every year whether the rules will change and the
rug will be swept from under their feet. Today I ask my colleagues to
come together to create a permanent fix. With the passage of this
amendment, there would be stringent guidelines that restrict the
expansion of PCMS, fully codifying that Congress must vote on PCMS land
acquisition, that the appropriation must be authorized, and that the
appropriation must be made.
Make no mistake, the soldiers at Fort Carson exemplify the finest and
bravest our nation has to offer. By removing the uncertainty
surrounding expansion plans for the PCMS, we believe relations with
surrounding communities will stabilize and greatly improve. Our armed
forces are focused on defending freedom, and the specter of PCMS
expansion has served only as a distraction to those on base and those
in neighboring communities.
Few other places in the U.S. have this level of statutory protection.
In fact, a Congressional authorization for a specific land acquisition
is unique to this amendment. I am pleased to help provide assurance to
the farmers, ranchers, and families of Southeast Colorado that there
will be no expansion of Pinon Canyon without the deliberation and
explicit approval of Congress.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, included in this en bloc
amendment is amendment #163 to H.R. 1960, made in order by H. Res. 260.
This amendment is bipartisan and submitted by myself, Mr. Fleischmann
of Tennessee and Mr. Lujan of New Mexico. It will protect and provide
public access to Manhattan Project facilities at three Department of
Energy former defense sites through the establishment of an historical
park. This is essentially the text of H.R. 1208, reported favorably by
the Committee on Natural Resources by unanimous consent in May 2013.
These three locations that the park will encompass were integral to
the tremendous engineering and human achievements of the Manhattan
Project launched during World War II. The three locations are the
Hanford site in my home State of Washington, Los Alamos in New Mexico,
and Oak Ridge in Tennessee.
The vast majority of the facilities that are eligible to be included
in this park are already owned by the federal government, and they are
located on former defense lands owned and controlled by the Department
of Energy.
As our nation already possesses these pieces of history, the real
purpose of this amendment is to officially declare the importance of
preserving the history, providing access to the public, and include the
unique abilities of the National Park Service to help tell this story.
Currently, some of these facilities slated for inclusion in this park
are scheduled to be destroyed at considerable taxpayer expense. A great
many local community leaders in all three states and interested
citizens have worked to coordinate a commitment to preserving this
piece of our history. Additionally, the government will save tens of
millions of dollars from foregone destruction, as opposed to the
minimal cost of providing public access and park administration.
Under this amendment, not only will history be protected, but so will
taxpayer dollars.
Let me describe one example of the savings. The B Reactor at the
Hanford site in Washington state is the first full-scale nuclear
reactor ever constructed. Walking into its control room and viewing the
reactor itself are like walking back in time. The federal government
has a legal obligation to clean up the B Reactor that involves partial
demolition, then cocooning the building in concrete for 75 years with
continual monitoring, before final removal and demolition at a total
cost in today's dollars of $90-100 million. With the amendment, this
$100 million will not be spent and this piece of history will not be
demolished.
This matter has been carefully studied by both the Department of the
Interior and the Department of Energy. Both Departments and the
National Park Service support this action. On behalf of the Obama
Administration, Interior Secretary Salazar has repeatedly expressed
support for the park, as have Department of Energy officials of both
the Obama and Bush Administrations.
In recognition of the important contributions to the Manhattan
Project by the men and women at sites across the country, the amendment
contains a provision allowing communities like Dayton, Ohio, for
example, outside the historical park, to receive technical assistance
and support from the Department of the Interior as they seek to
preserve and manage their own Manhattan Project park resources.
Many, many individuals and organizations have dedicated countless
hours towards this effort to preserve and tell this piece of history,
and to ensure current and future generations not only will learn this
story, but be able to visit and see it themselves. Among those
endorsing this effort are the Atomic Heritage Foundation, the National
Parks Conservation Association, the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, the Energy Communities Alliance, the City of Richland
Washington, the City of Oak Ridge Tennessee, the Tri-City Development
Council, and many more in Los Alamos and other areas across the nation.
Additionally, this effort has received strong endorsements from
newspapers from one side of our nation to the other, including the
Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times.
This is a good amendment that preserves and shares our nation's
history.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I rise to discuss of my amendment, number
146, to H.R. 1960, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014.'' My amendment simply states that nothing in the bill should
be construed as an authorization for the use of military force against
Iran. I would like to thank the cosponsors of my amendment: Mr. Jones
of North Carolina, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Ellison of Minnesota,
and Ms. Lee of California. I would also like to thank Chairman McKeon
and Ranking Member Smith for accepting this amendment in en bloc
amendment number eight. By adopting this amendment, the House of
Representatives is making it clear, for the second straight year, that
none of the provisions in this bill should be interpreted as a war
authorization against Iran.
In recent months, the possibility of a preemptive military strike
against Iran has been openly discussed as a policy option of last
resort as our country and our allies determine how to best confront the
challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program.
At the same time, this national discussion has prompted a large
number of current and former military and intelligence officials to
come forward to encourage the Congress and the Administration to
consider the possible consequences, both intended and unintended, of
such a strike.
These include high-level former U.S. and Israeli national security
officials, including a Bush administration National Intelligence
Council chairman, a former national intelligence officer for the Near
East and South Asia, Colin Powell's chief of staff, five retired
generals, the former Director of the Israeli Mossad, and a former Chief
of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces.
These experts have raised concerns that an attack on Iran could
possibly result in serious harm to the world economy, potentially
ignite a regional war, and even push Iran into building a nuclear
weapon.
With consequences as serious as these being raised by outside and
former national security experts, it is critical that any decision to
initiate military action against Iran be rigorously debated and, if
necessary, be backed by a separate war authorization.
Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Chair, I rise to strongly oppose Amendment #171 to
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act

[[Page H3620]]

for Fiscal Year 2014. This amendment is part of what for many of our
Republican colleagues is an obsession with singling out the District of
Columbia for anti-democratic bullying. There is no federal law that
exempts active duty military personnel in their personal capacities
from otherwise applicable federal firearms laws, except for residency
requirements, or from any state or local firearms laws. Yet this
amendment expresses the sense of Congress that active duty military
personnel should be exempt from the gun laws of only one local
jurisdiction, the District of Columbia. If the sponsor of this
amendment believes that active duty military personnel should be exempt
from federal, state or local firearms laws, why did he not offer an
amendment that would apply nationwide instead of only to the District
of Columbia? Republicans, who profess to support a limited federal
government and local control of local matters, pick on the District of
Columbia because they think they can. They are wrong.
The sponsor of this amendment lives in the past, acting as if the
changes D.C. made to its gun laws after the Supreme Court's Heller
decision in 2008 had never happened and as if a federal district court
and a federal appeals court have not upheld the constitutionality of
those revised gun laws. The sponsor also acts as if the Supreme Court's
McDonald decision in 2010 had not happened. In McDonald, the court said
that the Second Amendment does not confer the ``right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose.''
This amendment is the second time this year the sponsor has tried to
interfere in the local affairs of the District of Columbia. Earlier
this year, the sponsor introduced this amendment as a stand-alone bill.
Although this amendment is non-binding, we will fight every attack on
our rights as a local government, just as any member here would. This
amendment does nothing less than attempt to pave the way for actual
inroads into the District of Columbia's gun safety laws. The majority
can expect a fierce fight from us whenever they treat the American
citizens who live in the District of Columbia as second-class citizens.
The House adopted this amendment last year, but, working with our
allies, led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and
House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith, we were able
to keep it out of the final bill, and we will fight to do so again this
year.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chair, I am pleased to cosponsor this bipartisan
amendment, which would prohibit the Defense Department from
circumventing Congressional intent with regard to Russian state arms
dealer Rosoboronexport. This amendment prohibits the Department of
Defense from purchasing military helicopters from Rosoboronexport--a
company that has been supplying weapons to Syrian President Bashar al-
Assad's regime in its ``campaign of terror against its own people,'' as
characterized by Secretary of State Kerry.
The civil unrest and violence that has engulfed Syria and fueled
instability across the region just entered its third year. This week,
the United Nations reported that 93,000 people have been killed in this
conflict. In addition, more than 1.6 million Syrian refugees are now
displaced across five countries, and it is estimated that half of the
population of Syria will be in need of aid by the end of this year.
Russia has been the Assad regime's main arms supplier, recently
announcing that it would provide Syria with advanced S-300 missile
defense batteries. The Syrian Army also requested 20,000 Kalashnikov
assault rifles, 20 million rounds of ammunition, machine guns, grenade
launchers, grenades, and sniper rifles with night-vision sights from
Rosoboronexport.
The bipartisan amendment before us today, which I am pleased to
cosponsor with Representatives DeLauro, Granger, Moran, Kingston,
Ellison, and Wolf, would simply clarify the restrictions outlined in
last year's defense authorization bill, which prohibited the Pentagon
from using FY13 funds to enter into any contract with the Russian state
arms dealer. Unfortunately, the Defense Department ignored that
Congressional direction and found a way to maneuver around the law.
Defense officials announced in April that they would use FY12
Afghanistan Security Forces Funds to purchase 30 more Mi-17 helicopters
from Rosoboronexport. The signing of this contract is imminent.
Our amendment would ensure that no funding is used to purchase
equipment from this Russian arms dealer unless it cooperates with a
pending Defense Contract Audit Agency review of another contract in
which Rosoboronexport is suspected of overcharging the U.S. Navy.
Moreover, the amendment would also ensure that future helicopter
purchases for the Afghan National Security Force will be competitively
bid.
I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan amendment, which will
hold this Russian arms dealer accountable for its reprehensible role in
the Syrian conflict, as well as ensure that the Pentagon complies with
Congressional intent.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

Amendment No. 123 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 123
printed in part B of House Report 113-108.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 496, insert after line 24 the following (and conform
the table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 1218. IMPROVEMENT OF THE IRAQI SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA
PROGRAM.

The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 (8 U.S.C. 1157 note)
is amended--
(1) in section 1242, by amending subsection (c) to read as
follows:
``(c) Improved Application Process.--Not later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,'';
(2) in section 1244, as amended by this Act, is further
amended--
(A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary
of Homeland Security, or, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of State in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, may provide an alien
described in subsection (b) with the status of a special
immigrant under section 101(a)(27) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(27)), and shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, ensure efficiency
by which applications for special immigrant visas under
section 1244(a) are processed so that all steps incidental to
the issuance of such visas, including required screenings and
background checks, are completed not later than 9 months
after the date on which an eligible alien applies for such
visa, if the alien--''.
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (4) by adding at the end the following:
``(A) Review process for denial by chief of mission.--
``(i) In general.--An applicant who has been denied Chief
of Mission approval required by subparagraph (A) shall--

``(I) receive a written decision; and
``(II) be provided 120 days from the date of the decision
to request reopening of the decision to provide additional
information, clarify existing information, or explain any
unfavorable information.

``(ii) Senior coordinator.--The Secretary of State shall
designate, in the Embassy of the United States in Baghdad,
Iraq, a senior coordinator responsible for overseeing the
efficiency and integrity of the processing of special
immigrant visas under this section, who shall be given--

``(I) sufficiently high security clearance to review Chief
of Mission denials in cases that appear to have relied upon
insufficient or incorrect information; and
``(II) responsibility for ensuring that an applicant
described in clause (i) receives the information described in
clause (i)(I).''.

(3) in section 1248, by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Report on Improvements.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014, the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, shall submit a report, with a
classified annex, if necessary, to--
``(A) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
``(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
``(C) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives; and
``(D) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives.
``(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall describe the implementation of improvements to the
processing of applications for special immigrant visas under
section 1244(a), including information relating to--
``(A) enhancing existing systems for conducting background
and security checks of persons applying for special immigrant
status, which shall--
``(i) support immigration security; and
``(ii) provide for the orderly processing of such
applications without delay;
``(B) the financial, security, and personnel considerations
and resources necessary to carry out this subtitle;
``(C) the number of aliens who have applied for special
immigrant visas under section 1244 during each month of the
preceding fiscal year;
``(D) the reasons for the failure to expeditiously process
any applications that have been pending for longer than 9
months;
``(E) the total number of applications that are pending due
to the failure--
``(i) to receive approval from the Chief of Mission;

[[Page H3621]]

``(ii) for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to
complete the adjudication of the Form I-360;
``(iii) to conduct a visa interview; or
``(iv) to issue the visa to an eligible alien;
``(F) the average wait times for an applicant at each of
the stages described in subparagraph (E);
``(G) the number of denials or rejections at each of the
stages described in subparagraph (E); and
``(H) a breakdown of reasons for denials at by the Chief of
Mission based on the categories already made available to
denied special immigrant visa applicants in the denial letter
sent to them by the Chief of Mission.
``(g) Public Quarterly Reports.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and every 3 months
thereafter, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, shall publish a report on the website of the
Department of State that describes the efficiency
improvements made in the process by which applications for
special immigrant visas under section 1244(a) are processed,
including information described in subparagraphs (C) through
(H) of subsection (f)(2).''.

SEC. 1219. IMPROVEMENT OF THE AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA
PROGRAM.

Section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009
(8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (D)--
(i) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Review process for denial by chief of mission.--

``(I) In general.--An applicant who has been denied Chief
of Mission approval shall--

``(aa) receive a written decision; and
``(bb) be provided 120 days from the date of receipt of
such opinion to request reconsideration of the decision to
provide additional information, clarify existing information,
or explain any unfavorable information.

``(II) Senior coordinator.--The Secretary of State shall
designate, in the Embassy of the United States in Kabul,
Afghanistan, a senior coordinator responsible for overseeing
the efficiency and integrity of the processing of special
immigrant visas under this section, who shall be given--

``(aa) sufficiently high security clearance to review Chief
of Mission denials in cases that appear to have relied upon
insufficient or incorrect information; and
``(bb) responsibility for ensuring that an applicant
described in subclause (I) receives the information described
in subclause (I)(aa).'';
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Prohibition on fees'' and
inserting ``Application process'';
(B) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, shall improve the efficiency by which applications
for special immigrant visas under paragraph (1) are processed
so that all steps incidental to the issuance of such visas,
including required screenings and background checks, are
completed not later than 6 months after the date on which an
eligible alien applies for such visa.
``(B) Prohibition on fees.--The Secretary''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Report on improvements.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation
with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report, with a
classified annex, if necessary, that describes the
implementation of improvements to the processing of
applications for special immigrant visas under this
subsection, including information relating to--
``(A) enhancing existing systems for conducting background
and security checks of persons applying for special immigrant
status, which shall--
``(i) support immigration security; and
``(ii) provide for the orderly processing of such
applications without delay;
``(B) the financial, security, and personnel considerations
and resources necessary to carry out this section;
``(C) the number of aliens who have applied for special
immigrant visas under this subsection during each month of
the preceding fiscal year;
``(D) the reasons for the failure to expeditiously process
any applications that have been pending for longer than 9
months;
``(E) the total number of applications that are pending due
to the failure--
``(i) to receive approval from the Chief of Mission;
``(ii) for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to
complete the adjudication of the Form I-360;
``(iii) to conduct a visa interview; or
``(iv) to issue the visa to an eligible alien;
``(F) the average wait times for an applicant at each of
the stages described in subparagraph (E);
``(G) the number of denials or rejections at each of the
stages described in subparagraph (E); and
``(H) a breakdown of reasons for denials by the Chief of
Mission based on the categories already made available to
denied special immigrant visa applicants in the denial letter
sent to them by the Chief of Mission.
``(13) Public quarterly reports.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and every 3 months
thereafter, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, shall publish a report on the website of the
Department of State that describes the efficiency
improvements made in the process by which applications for
special immigrant visas under this subsection are processed,
including information described in subparagraph (C) through
(H) of paragraph (12).''.

SEC. 1219. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

(b) Purpose.--Expressing the Sense of the House or
Representatives that the Special Immigration Visa programs
authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 and the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009
are critical to the U.S. national security, and that these
programs must be reformed and extended in order to meet the
Congressional intent with which they were created.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Congress created the Special Immigration Visa program
for the purposes of protecting and aiding the many brave
Iraqis and Afghans whose lives, and the lives of their
families, were endangered as a result of their faithful and
valuable service to the United States during Operations
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
(2) The Iraq Special Immigrant Visa program is set to
expire at the end of fiscal year 2013.
(3) The Afghanistan Special Immigrant Visa program is set
to expire at the end of fiscal year 2014.
(4) Despite the pending expiration of the Special Immigrant
Visa programs, many brave Iraqis, Afghans, and their
families, continue to face ongoing and serious threats as a
result of their employment by or on behalf of the U.S.
Government.
(5) Between FY08-FY12, only 22 percent of the available
Iraqi SIVs (5,500 visas out of 25,000 visas) have been issued
and 12 percent of the available Afghan SIVs (1,051 visas out
of 8,500 visas) have been issued.
(6) As the Washington Post reported in October 2012, over
5,000 documentarily complete Afghan SIV applications remained
in a backlog.
(7) The implementation of the Special Immigration Visa
programs has been protracted and inefficient.
(8) The application and approval process for the Special
Immigration Visa program is unnecessarily opaque and
difficult to navigate.
(9) Applicants in both Iraq and Afghanistan often have
effusive recommendations from numerous military personnel,
have served the U.S. war efforts for many years, and have
served valiantly, in some instances literally taking a bullet
for a U.S. service member, and yet are denied approval for a
Special Immigration Visa with little to no transparency.
(10) Overly narrow provisions contained in the Afghan
Allies Protection Act of 2009 leave many deserving Afghans
and their families in need of U.S. assistance, but unable to
access the Special Immigration Visa program.
(11) The United States has a responsibility to follow
through on its promise to protect those Iraqis and Afghans
who have risked their lives to aid our troops and protect
America's security.
(12) The extension and reform of the Iraq and Afghanistan
Special Immigrant Visa programs is a matter of national
security.
(13) The extension and reform of the Afghan Special
Immigrant Visa program is essential to the U.S. mission in
Afghanistan.
(c) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Iraq and Afghanistan Special
Immigrant Visa programs should be--
(1) reformed by--
(A) ensuring applications are processed in a timely, and
transparent fashion;
(B) providing parity between the two Special Immigrant Visa
programs so that Afghan principal applicants, like Iraqi
principal applicants, are able to include their spouse,
children, siblings, and parents; and
(C) expanding eligibility for the Special Immigrant Visa
programs to Afghan or Iraqi men and women employed by, or on
behalf of, a media or nongovernmental organization
headquartered in the United States, or an organization or
entity closely associated with the United States mission in
Iraq or Afghanistan that has received U.S. Government funding
through an official and documented contract, award, grant, or
cooperative agreement; and
(2) extended in--
(A) Iraq through the year 2018, without authorizing any
additional Special Immigrant Visas as authorized in the
original statue; and
(B) Afghanistan through the year 2018, without authorizing
any additional Special Immigrant Visas as authorized in the
original statue.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a

[[Page H3622]]

Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Madam Chair, we spend appropriate time on the floor commemorating the
bravery of our men and women who were in harm's way in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but there were other brave men and women who worked with
our soldiers, putting themselves in harm's way, and I'm referring to
foreign nationals--Iraqis and Afghanistan citizens who were
interpreters and who were drivers, people working for NGOs, people who
made it possible for our troops to perform at the highest level. They
served shoulder to shoulder with our men and women in uniform.
Now, I am pleased that there is a partial extension in the Special
Immigrant Visa program in the underlying bill for Iraqis and Afghanis.
It's important that we have these special visas. I have been pleased to
have played a small role in helping create the Special Immigrant Visa
program that enables these people to escape harm's way. Many of them
are in danger of being killed because people know that they helped our
forces, and they are left behind.
I really appreciate the ranking member, the chair, and their staff
for the work to help partially extend the Special Immigration Visa
program. But this bipartisan amendment, offered with my colleagues,
Congresswoman Gabbard and Representatives Kinzinger and Stivers, all
three of whom served in the field of battle, is an opportunity to help
ensure these programs finish the job for which they were created.

{time} 1100

These programs expire for Iraq at the end of this fiscal year. That's
September 30, and the following September 30 for Afghanistan. And while
they are set to expire, those in Iraq and Afghanistan who made our
mission possible continue to be plagued by inefficiencies and
bureaucratic hurdles. Through fiscal year 2012, only 22 percent of the
available Iraq SIVs have been issued, and only 12 percent for
Afghanistan.
The Washington Post reported that over 5,000 documentarily complete
Afghan applications remain in a backlog. The backlog and delay means
not just weeks or months, but years for those who risked their lives to
help the U.S. mission, and means living in constant fear and hiding,
knowing they or their families could be killed at any moment.
Our amendment demonstrates a strong commitment from the House for
comprehensive extension and reform in conference. It enhances the
programs by providing efficiency, transparency, accuracy, and
oversight.
Madam Chair, I yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).
Ms. GABBARD. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment
to improve the Special Immigrant Visa programs for local civilians who
put their lives in danger to aid our troops as they've served in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
We see in times of war and in times of conflict that our
servicemembers are lauded and honored for their service and tremendous
sacrifice, but there are many stories that remain untold. There are
many unseen heroes who sacrifice every single day as they serve
alongside our troops.
During my first deployment to Iraq, I served in a medical unit, and
we had two interpreters who worked with us on a daily basis. One was
named Kaddam. He sat in our clinic, went out on missions with our
medics. I spoke to him almost every day and learned so much about his
family, his community, and the challenges that he overcame every day to
just work with us.
He drove home every night with a firearm under his driver's seat, in
fear, not only of his own life, but in fear of the health and safety of
his family. He had a few young children, and he spoke very strongly
about his hopes and his dreams for them being able to have a future, to
have an education, which was a far cry from the life that he was living
there; and that's why he served with us.
We had another interpreter who we called, our Hawaii unit called
Kahuna. And his situation was very different. He lived in secrecy,
where his neighbors and his friends didn't know that he was working
with us; and because of that, he stayed in our camp. He lived with us
and worked with us on a daily basis because he believed in what we were
doing, and he wouldn't want to risk his family's life.
The stories go on and on of those who have sacrificed so much, not
only because they believed in what we were doing, what our mission was,
what our work was, but in the hopes that they could also live a free
life for themselves, a life where they were not fraught on a daily
basis with just getting by.
And for that, I personally stand in strong support of this.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment; however, I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you yielding.
And, Mr. Blumenauer, thank you for leading on this, Ms. Gabbard and
Mr. Stivers as well. This is such an important issue.
You know, we're a Nation of commitments, and a lot of the times
Washington gets this reputation of Republicans and Democrats don't
agree on anything, and we just fight like cats and dogs. I feel like
some of that is true, but I think this is a great example of where,
frankly, people are coming together to say as a Nation what's the right
thing to do here.
We've made commitments. We've taken ourselves and made promises to
people, and people have put themselves out on the line for us. What's
the right thing to do?
I would even dare to speculate that those of us that are sponsoring
this amendment probably don't even agree on the future of the Iraq war
or the Afghanistan war. But we do know that we believe we have to hold
to this.
As Ms. Gabbard was talking about, there's a lot of unsung heroes in
the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I experienced it as well as a pilot in
the military as people that were Iraqi nationals, in my case, that
really stood up and put their lives on the line in order to fight for a
new Iraq, to fight for a new freedom, to provide for their families,
and to understand that they want to build an alliance between Iraq and
the United States.
And a lot of them went home at night, as was eloquently expressed,
went home at night in fear that this was going to cost them their
lives, but knowing that the strength and the power of the United States
was there with them, and that they could rest easy at night, knowing
that we could keep to our words.
Unfortunately, many of these folks have been killed or targeted for
killing, and do continue to live in fear. And so we created a program
which would allow a lot of these that have put their lives on the line
in order to facilitate what our interest is in Afghanistan and Iraq, to
be able to come to the United States.
And, unfortunately, this has been bogged down in bureaucracy that
doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's been bogged down in the
definition of whether they worked for the United States or whether they
actually worked for ISAF. Well, I would tend to say that whether you
worked for ISAF or the United States, you should probably fall under
this program.
I think it's just right that we, as a Nation, figure out what's going
wrong and do this, and I think this is a great opportunity. This is a
great opportunity to come together and say, you know, you put your life
on the line for us; we're going to do everything we can for you.
I think about all the times when I would be ready to go fly and, you
know, you talk to folks that are associated with what we're doing; and
had we not had interpreters there to be able to bring the languages,
frankly, the United States and Iraq or Afghanistan together, we'd often
just be staring at each other, not knowing what we're thinking, but
we're each thinking something.
But to be able to have these folks that come together and really talk

[[Page H3623]]

about what it is that we need to do is the right thing to do.
I just, again, want to say that, as Americans, we have to hold to our
commitments. This program provides lifesaving protection to those that
served us. It will provide refuge to the countless Iraqis and Afghan
civilians that have helped us, and it's the right thing to do.
So, again, I just want to say to Mr. Blumenauer, to Ms. Gabbard, to
Mr. Stivers and to everybody watching, frankly, and listening to these
proceedings, thank you for your help.
Thank you to America for standing up and doing the right thing, and
to those that continue to defend us day by day.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 137 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 137
printed in part B of House Report 113-108.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title XII of division A, add
the following new section:

SEC. 12_. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT
FROM ROSOBORONEXPORT.

(a) Limitation.--No funds authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of Defense for any fiscal year after fiscal
year 2013 may be used for the purchase of any equipment from
Rosoboronexport until the Secretary of Defense certifies in
writing to the congressional defense committees that, to the
best of the Secretary's knowledge--
(1) Rosoboronexport is cooperating fully with the Defense
Contract Audit Agency;
(2) Rosoboronexport has not delivered S-300 advanced anti-
aircraft missiles to Syria; and
(3) no new contracts have been signed between the Bashar al
Assad regime in Syria and Rosoboronexport since January 1,
2013.
(b) National Security Waiver.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the
limitation in subsection (a) if the Secretary certifies that
the waiver in order to purchase equipment from
Rosoboronexport is in national security interest of the
United States.
(2) Report.--If the Secretary waives the limitation in
subsection (a) pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
submit to the congressional defense committees, not later
than 30 days before purchasing equipment from Rosoboronexport
pursuant to the waiver, a report on the waiver. The report
shall be submitted in classified or unclassified form, at the
election of the Secretary. The report shall include the
following:
(A) An explanation why it is in the national security
interest of the United States to purchase equipment from
Rosoboronexport.
(B) An explanation why comparable equipment cannot be
purchased from another corporation.
(C) An assessment of the cooperation of Rosoboronexport
with the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
(D) An assessment of whether and how many S-300 advanced
anti-aircraft missiles have been delivered to the Assad
regime by Rosoboronexport.
(E) A list of the contracts that Rosoboronexport has signed
with the Assad regime since January 1, 2013.
(c) Requirement for Competitively Bid Contracts.--The
Secretary of Defense shall award any contract that will use
United States funds for the procurement of helicopters for
the Afghan Security Forces using competitive procedures based
on requirements developed by the Secretary of Defense.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strengthen a
prohibition unanimously supported last year to stop the Defense
Department from purchasing equipment from the Russian arms dealer
Rosoboronexport.
As we have debated this bill, estimates of the death toll in Syria
hit 93,000 and the administration confirmed use of chemical weapons by
the Assad regime. Yet, remarkably, U.S. taxpayers continue to provide
subsidies to Russia's arms dealer through no-bid Pentagon purchases of
Mi-17 helicopters, even as the firm continues to serve as the top
supplier of the weapons the Syrian regime is using to fuel the tragic
war.
In fact, the Russian arms dealer recently took an order from the
Syrian Army for a wide range of weaponry, and the possibility remains
that Russia may provide Syria with S-300 air defense systems.

{time} 1110

It is unacceptable that at the same time the Pentagon is purchasing
Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan National Security Forces from
Rosoboronexport through no-bid contracts that do not allow U.S.
companies to compete.
Last year, the Army purchased 31 Mi-17s from the Russian arms dealer.
The President then signed into law last year's defense bill banning the
Pentagon from using 2013 funds to enter into a contract with the
Russian arms dealer. Yet, in a clear violation of the spirit of the
law, DOD announced in April it would use 2012 Afghanistan Security
Forces funds to purchase 30 more Mi-17s, a contract signing that is
imminent. Meanwhile, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, or DCAA,
attempted an audit of Rosoboronexport's pricing of Mi-17 helicopters,
which the firm refused to cooperate with. This is outrageous.
My bipartisan amendment prohibits the Pentagon from purchasing
equipment from the Russian arms maker unless the Secretary certifies
the firm is cooperating with DCAA, not delivering S-300 missile defense
batteries to Syria, and has not signed new contracts with Syria since
the beginning of the year. The amendment also requires that any new
contract for helicopters for the Afghans be competitively bid.
The Defense Department should not engage in contracts with companies
arming the Syrian regime. This can and must stop. Furthermore, if we
are going to spend U.S. taxpayers' dollars to provide helicopters to
the Afghan National Security Forces, we should spend those dollars for
the purchase of U.S.-made helicopters.
I urge support for my amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment although I will not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 2\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), who has worked on this issue with me.
Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from Connecticut--and the
chairman of the committee because I trust that he will support this as
well.
This amendment passed overwhelmingly last year, bipartisan vote. The
problem is that the Defense Department ignored it. They went ahead,
continuing to buy weapons from Rosoboronexport, the very same Russian
arms supplier that is enabling President Assad to kill more than 90,000
of his own people, who is now, we confirmed, using chemical weapons
against his people. 1.6 million Syrian refugees are scattered across
five countries; and within the year, half of the Syrian population is
going to be in need of aid. So this has to be fixed. This is not a
sustainable situation.
The Obama administration says, well, we are going to have to get more
aggressively involved, supplying more military assistance to the
insurgents. But think about this: the problem is that Assad is getting
all the weapons he wants. In fact, he's asked this Russian arms
exporter, Rosoboronexport, for advanced S-300 missile defense
batteries, 20,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, 20 million rounds of
ammunition, machine guns, grenade launchers, grenade sniper rifles with
night vision sights. Mi-17 helicopters are also made by
Rosoboronexport, and we're buying helicopters from them. Can't we
coordinate the right hand with the left

[[Page H3624]]

hand? We should not be basically subsidizing Rosoboronexport, which is
a large part of the problem in Syria.
Some have suggested that without Russia's aid, President Assad cannot
continue killing his own people. Now, I don't know that we can ever
convince President Putin to stop this--it's obviously a state-owned
arms supplier--but surely the Congress can say, no, don't purchase from
the same person that is supplying the Syrian regime.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
113-108 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Turner of Ohio.
Amendment No. 22 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 25 by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 32 by Mr. Nolan of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 33 by Mr. Larsen of Washington.
Amendment No. 36 by Mr. Gibson of New York.
Amendment No. 37 by Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
Amendment No. 19 by Mrs. Walorski of Indiana.
Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Smith of Washington.
Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
Amendment No. 23 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
Amendment No. 39 by Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland.
Amendment No. 123 by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
Amendment No. 137 by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Turner

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Turner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 182, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 229]

AYES--239

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--182

Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Johnson (GA)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Pelosi
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter
Westmoreland

{time} 1142

Mr. FARR and Ms. BROWNLEY of California changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BARTON, CRAWFORD, DUFFY, and LIPINSKI changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Barton was allowed to speak out of order.)

52nd Annual Congressional Baseball Game

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I have my 7-year-old son, Jack, with me
this week.
As we walked on the floor, he asked me, ``Daddy, why is that trophy
on that desk?''
And I said, ``Well, son, they won the game last night.''
So I rise in reluctant recognition of the fact that last night, at
Nationals Park, the Democrats squeaked out a 22-0 victory over the
stalwart Republican team.

[[Page H3625]]

Our MVP is Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona, who was a Member of this
body until last year. We had a number of other Members who played very
well--John Shimkus, Bill Johnson, Mike Conaway, Rodney Davis, Ron
DeSantis, and the list goes on and on. The fact remains that the
Democrats won, and they are entitled to the trophy.
Our hats are off to you.
With that, I yield to my good friend, the manager from Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Mr. Mike Doyle.
Mr. DOYLE. First off, I want to thank my good friend Joe Barton--he
is my good friend--for a good game last night.
I can't really single out individuals. This was a team effort on the
Democratic side. Our team had 24 hits and no errors in the field.
Cedric Richmond normally strikes out a lot of batters, and, last year,
Cedric had 16 strikeouts. For the first five innings, Cedric didn't
strike out a single batter. We had 15 putouts in the field. When you
hit the ball, we fielded it, and we made the throws to first, and we
made the plays.
It was the best team effort that I've seen out of the Democratic side
in the 19 years I've been associated with the game, and I want to
congratulate my team.
As my good friend Joe Barton knows, the real winners of this game are
three charities. We broke a record this year. We raised $300,000 for
our charities--the Washington Boys & Girls Club, the Washington
Literacy Council, and the Dream Foundation, which is going to help
children in the Seventh Ward in Washington, D.C. This is going to be a
great program for the kids--for boys and girls to learn baseball, but
also to learn more important things in after-school learning centers
and the like.
So, to the charities--the real winners of this game--congratulations.
This is a great tradition that helps bring us together. I can tell
you that the members of the Republican baseball team are friends of
ours, and we enjoy the camaraderie and the game every year, and we look
forward to it again next year.
Mr. BARTON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Holt

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 61,
noes 362, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 230]

AYES--61

Bass
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Clarke
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
DeFazio
DeGette
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Jeffries
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney, Carolyn
Matheson
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Nolan
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Tierney
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Welch

NOES--362

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowenthal
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Costa
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

{time} 1152

Ms. LEE of California and Mr. CROWLEY changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. McCollum

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[[Page H3626]]

[Roll No. 231]

AYES--134

Alexander
Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Becerra
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Eshoo
Gardner
Gosar
Grayson
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Huizenga (MI)
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kingston
Kirkpatrick
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matheson
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Noem
Nolan
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Reichert
Richmond
Roby
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Speier
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Waxman

NOES--290

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

{time} 1156

Mr. CARDENAS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. MAFFEI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Nolan

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Nolan) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 232]

AYES--71

Amash
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Capuano
Clarke
Clay
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
DeFazio
DeGette
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Lee (CA)
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lummis
Maffei
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Nolan
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Velazquez
Waters
Welch

NOES--353

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holding
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon

[[Page H3627]]

McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Takano
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1200

Mr. ENGEL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Larsen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 233]

AYES--195

Amash
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--229

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

{time} 1204

Mr. PERRY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Gibson

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gibson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 234]

AYES--123

Aderholt
Amash
Bilirakis
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Capps

[[Page H3628]]

Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke
Coffman
Conyers
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Enyart
Eshoo
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foxx
Garamendi
Gibson
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Labrador
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
Meadows
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Radel
Reed
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothfus
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Schrader
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Walz
Webster (FL)
Welch
Whitfield
Yoho

NOES--301

Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carney
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Himes
Holding
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pittenger
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

{time} 1209

Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. LABRADOR, McHENRY, GUTIERREZ, and PERRY changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Coffman

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Coffman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 235]

AYES--110

Amash
Bass
Becerra
Benishek
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Capuano
Carney
Cassidy
Chabot
Cicilline
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Eshoo
Fattah
Gabbard
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kind
Labrador
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Massie
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
Meehan
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Nadler
Nolan
Pallone
Payne
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Rahall
Ribble
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Speier
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Velazquez
Walz
Waters
Waxman
Woodall
Yarmuth

NOES--313

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Beatty
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Duffy
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Horsford
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin

[[Page H3629]]

Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radel
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
DeFazio
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1213

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mrs. Walorski

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Indiana
(Mrs. Walorski) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 236]

AYES--236

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--188

Amash
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

{time} 1217

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 236 I inadvertently voted
``nay'' when I intended to Support the Amendment.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 237]

AYES--174

[[Page H3630]]

DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--249

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Kuster
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on
this vote.

{time} 1220

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 237, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Polis

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Polis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 238]

AYES--150

Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--274

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardenas
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin

[[Page H3631]]

Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waters
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on
this vote.

{time} 1223

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Polis

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 239]

AYES--146

Amash
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--278

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

{time} 1227

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Van Hollen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 240]

AYES--191

Amash
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Garamendi
Garcia
Garrett
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes

[[Page H3632]]

Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Ribble
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoho

NOES--232

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Takano
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter
Vargas

{time} 1230

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 123 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 241]

AYES--420

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas

[[Page H3633]]

Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--3

Duncan (TN)
Peterson
Price (GA)

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Coffman
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

{time} 1234

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 137 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 242]

AYES--423

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Coffman
Edwards
Fudge
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1237

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 241 and 242, I was
unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Capito) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military
activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 260, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

{time} 1240

Motion to Recommit

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. DUCKWORTH. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following new
section:

[[Page H3634]]

SEC. 5__. CONVENING AUTHORITY RELIANCE ON OFFICE OF THE CHIEF
PROSECUTOR RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED TO TRIAL
OF ANY CHARGE INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT OR OTHER
SEX-RELATED OFFENSE.

(a) In General.--Section 834 of title 10, United States
Code (article 34 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after the subsection (b) the following new
subsection (c):
``(c)(1) In the case of any charge involving sexual assault
or other sex-related offense covered by section 920, 920a,
920b, or 920c of this title (article 120, 120a, 120b, or 120c
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), the convening
authority shall also refer the charge to the Office of the
Chief Prosecutor of the armed force of which the accused is a
member for additional consideration and advice unless the
victim (or the parent or legal guardian of the victim if the
victim is a minor) of such offense elects that such charge
only be referred to the staff judge advocate pursuant to
subsection (a).
``(2) If the Office of the Chief Prosecutor is referred a
charge covered by paragraph (1) and recommends that the
charge be referred to trial, the recommendation shall be
binding on the convening authority and the convening
authority shall promptly direct a trial of the charge.''.
(b) Appointment of Chief Prosecutor.--For any Armed Force
for which the position of Chief Prosecutor does not exist
before the date of the enactment of this Act, the Judge
Advocate General of that Armed Force shall establish the
position of Chief Prosecutor and appoint as the Chief
Prosecutor a commissioned officer in the grade of O-6 or
above who has significant experience prosecuting sexual
assault trials by court-martial.

Mrs. WALORSKI (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam Speaker, the willingness of our troops to place
the Nation first is why the scourge of sexual harassment and assault in
the military is so horrific. Just a single case is unacceptable. This
is a self-inflicted wound that has no place in the greatest military in
the world.
I love the military with every bone in my body. The lessons I learned
as an army officer, the camaraderie I experienced are at the core of
who I am, just as it is for my brothers and sisters in arms. That is
why I am personally devastated to see how many predators continue to
abuse and attack one of our own.
The military is a place of great discipline, technical proficiency,
and personal sacrifice for the greater good. It is a place where young
men and women grow and thrive, developing as great leaders and team
members. This is the case for so many of them. However, for some, the
military has now become a place of fear and intimidation.
The services have made significant efforts to try to stamp out sexual
harassment and assault, but there are still unacceptable failures in
these efforts. With each new piece of data on the rates of sexual
assault and on the lack of command responsibility by many in dealing
with military sexual trauma, I have gradually come to the conclusion
that we need another path to protect the victims.
This amendment adds a new course of action for victims to pursue
should they choose it. It empowers them at a time when they feel most
powerless with a new option that is outside the chain of command with
an independent investigation and prosecution system.
I place the highest priority on the importance of a commander's
authority to lead and discipline the men and women under his or her
command. However, in the case of sexual crimes, there continues to be
failures in the existing processes for investigations and punishments
within that chain. That is why we must empower victims with an
additional choice so that they can seek justice.
There are many, many good commanders. My own experience has been a
positive one with all of my commanders, all of whom were men, being
protective of all of their soldiers and doing the right thing. Yet the
data shows that there are enough predators and failed commanders that
we need to take care of this now. This solution supports command
authority but also, importantly, empowers victims by giving them one
more option.
The men and women in our Armed Forces are why we live freely in the
greatest country in the world. When our warriors face combat, they must
be able to focus completely and single-mindedly on the mission at hand.
They cannot do this if they are threatened with sexual assault.
When our Nation's parents are approached by their brave young son or
daughter who is looking to join the military, these moms and dads need
to know without a doubt that their child will be cared for, that they
will become disciplined, well-trained leaders. They should not have to
fear that their child will become a rape victim.
The military is a place of honor, one where our troops serve with
great pride. This amendment is a balanced approach that honors our
military by providing the victim with a choice on how to seek justice.
Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlelady from California, who's been a leader in victims' rights, Ms.
Speier.
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the heroic lady from Illinois, and I think, for
all of us, hearing your words are profound.
What we are seeing here is, not only are there physical wounds, there
are emotional wounds. So many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle have shared with me the stories of victims who have been raped
and sexually assaulted--the fear, the pain, the tears--and they all, to
the woman and to the man, have said how powerless they feel.
This particular amendment will give them a little leverage. This
amendment is going to give them a choice. This amendment respects the
chain of command. This amendment gives them the opportunity to use the
chain of command or to seek to go to the chief prosecutor in each of
the services to seek an investigation and an evaluation as to whether
or not a prosecution should move forward.
We have an opportunity here to really change the face of this issue,
and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this amendment.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Indiana is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, we worked for months
on bipartisan legislation to confront this problem. The time for this
Congress to act on this issue is right now. I ask you to support the
bipartisan solution in this bill, reject the procedural motion to
recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 225, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 243]

AYES--194

Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur

[[Page H3635]]

Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--225

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Sanchez, Loretta

NOT VOTING--14

Bachmann
Bachus
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Issa
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

{time} 1254

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 315,
noes 108, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 244]

AYES--315

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carney
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Duffy
Ellmers
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Holding
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Takano
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Waters
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--108

Amash
Bass
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Cicilline
Clarke
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutch
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Grayson
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Labrador
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lummis
Lynch
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Nolan
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Radel
Rangel
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)

[[Page H3636]]

Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoho

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Campbell
Chu
Edwards
Fudge
Green, Gene
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Shea-Porter

{time} 1307

Mrs. LUMMIS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 244 final
passage, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

____________________