[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2940-H2948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016


                             General Leave

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1735.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 255 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1735.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1750


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 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. Graves of Louisiana in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring to the floor H.R. 1735, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This measure 
was reported by the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 60 members 
voting for and two members voting against. Of the two members, there 
was one from each party.
  This bill follows the bipartisan tradition of the committee working 
collaboratively with an integrated staff to support the men and women 
who serve and protect our Nation.
  All members of the committee have contributed to this product, and I 
am very grateful for all of their efforts throughout the year. I am 
especially grateful to the efforts of the ranking member, Mr. Smith, 
not only for his contributions and for his partnership in the committee 
but doing so at a time where he has been dealing with surgeries and a 
variety of things. But it has been a true pleasure and continues to be 
to work with him for the benefit of our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes spending for the Department of 
Defense at a level that is consistent with the congressional budget 
resolution and a level that is consistent with the President's budget 
request. So there have been differences, and there will continue to be 
some differences about how some of that spending gets categorized, but 
when you add it all up together, this authorization measure meets 
exactly what the President has asked for, which is essentially $611.9 
billion for national defense.
  Included is a program-by-program authorization for all of that 
spending; whether it is in the overseas contingency account or the base 
budget, it is all authorized program by program.
  This bill also contains some significant reforms, including 
acquisition reform, to improve the way the Department purchases goods 
and services. We have been working with the Pentagon and with industry 
to thin out regulations, simplify the process, and make it easier to 
hold industry and government personnel accountable for the results.

  This bill has overhead reform to reduce the amount of money that we 
are spending on overhead and bureaucracy so that more resources can be 
devoted to the men and women on the front lines.
  This measure has reform in the area of personnel pay and benefits. Of 
the 15 recommendations by the personnel commission, this measure does 
something in 11 of those 15 so that we can be in better shape to 
continue to recruit and retain the top quality people that our Nation 
needs for decades to come.
  Now, some people say, Well, there is too much reform here. Some 
people say, Well, there is not enough reform here. There isn't enough 
if enough means you solve all the problems. But there is a start at 
significant reform that helps make sure we get better value for the 
money we spend and also that the Department is more agile in meeting 
the national security challenges we face.
  Mr. Chairman, this morning in reading the papers, I made some notes 
about the headlines just in one newspaper today, May 13, 2015. Some of 
those headlines are ``Kerry Meets Putin,'' ``U.S. Weighs Plan to 
Confront China in the South China Sea,'' and ``Fresh Earthquake Rattles 
Nepal.''
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, I know that the Marines and their families 
who were involved in the helicopter, which has not yet been found to my 
understanding, are certainly in our thoughts and prayers. Our military 
is called upon to do humanitarian efforts.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  ``Somali Men Plead Guilty in Terror Plot,'' ``North Korea Executes 
Defense Chief,'' and ``Assad Still Has Chemical Arms.'' The list goes 
on and on. This is the world that we face. This is the world we send 
our men and women out into to protect us and to defend our Nation. They 
deserve the best from us. They deserve something other than political 
games. They should not be used as pawns to make a point.
  We should give them our best by doing our job under the Constitution, 
just as they give us their best in defending this country. Therefore, 
Mr. Chairman, I think this bill, H.R. 1735, deserves the support of all 
Members in this House, and I hope they will do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman--this is his first 
year as chairman--on his hard work on this bill, and there are a lot of 
very good things in this bill. I think most prominently is the reform 
the chairman mentioned, the compensation reform. We formed a commission 
to study how we do personnel compensation and the retirement system. In 
a very rare move, we actually followed some of the advice of that 
commission in this bill and made, I think, some very positive reforms 
to the personnel compensation system. There are a variety of other 
reforms the chairman has worked on that are important. There is also a 
whole slew of provisions in there that do, in fact, do an excellent job 
of providing for the men and women who defend our country. So there are 
a lot of very positive things about this bill.

[[Page H2941]]

  I appreciate the hard work of everyone involved.
  Unfortunately, for the first time in 19 years, I am going to be 
opposing the NDAA on the floor for two reasons, but one is really the 
big one, and it is understanding how our budget has worked.
  We have not had a normal budget appropriations process since 2011, 
and this has affected every single government agency--and keep that 
fact in mind--not just the Department of Defense. I will talk about the 
Department of Defense at length. But the lack of a normal 
appropriations budget process has impacted every single Federal agency: 
transportation, infrastructure, education, housing, on down the line.
  Ever since 2011, Mr. Chairman, they have faced one government 
shutdown and a succession of threatened government shutdowns and 
continuing resolutions. This has made it absolutely impossible to plan 
long term and also has cut a pretty dramatic amount of money out of all 
of these agencies. It has been particularly hard on the Department of 
Defense, which tries to do a 5-year plan when they are figuring out 
what they can procure. This sort of halt, stop, we are going to fund 
you, we are not going to fund you, we are going to shut down the 
government, CR, has had a devastating impact on the ability to fund 
government.
  The budget resolution passed by the House and the Senate this year 
does not fix that because it relies on the overseas contingency 
operation fund, which is limiting. It is 1 year of money. It, again, 
does not allow the Department of Defense to be planned. I want everyone 
to know the Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, in the Senate, testified 
on why OCO, funding $38 billion of the Defense bill through OCO, is 
unacceptable, and he doesn't support it and doesn't support this bill.
  But the reason we oppose this--and this is very important to 
understand--to fix the problem, to get us to the point where we can 
fund Defense and everything else in a reasonable way, we need to get 
rid of the budget caps from the Budget Control Act. That is the only 
way. And we do not do that here. We take money out of the overseas 
contingency operation fund to give Defense 38 billion additional 
dollars.
  But, in one sense, Mr. Thornberry is wrong when he says that in all 
senses what we do here matches what the President did. Within the 
Defense budget, the number is the same. But the President's budget also 
lifted the budget caps for the 11 other appropriations bills.
  I know we serve on the Armed Services Committee, and I have heard 
members of the Armed Services Committee say, ``Don't talk to me about 
that stuff. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. That is not my 
department.''

                              {time}  1800

  I would love to know what district those people are living in because 
roads and bridges and schools and housing, it affects all of us, and 
those budget caps remain in place.
  What this Defense bill does, unfortunately, is it locks in the 
Republican budget. It locks in the deal they made with the Senate to 
continue to provide devastating cuts at the Budget Control Act level 
for everything else and then let Defense and only Defense out of jail 
in an awkward sort of backdoor way through the overseas contingency 
operations.
  To agree to this bill is to agree to cuts in those 11 other bills--to 
cuts in transportation, to cuts in research, to cuts at NIH and CDC, in 
all of these programs that we care about. If we accept this, then those 
cuts are locked into place.
  Don't get me wrong. I support spending $38 billion more on the 
Defense budget; I support the President's level; I support this level, 
but I also support lifting the budget caps for all of the other areas 
of our government that are facing the same sort of devastating cuts and 
difficulties that the Defense Department has. If we agree with this, we 
lock in the budget.
  Lastly, I want to point out that the President has said he does not 
support this process. He opposes all the appropriations bills, and he 
will oppose this Defense bill. The President hasn't gone away. There is 
not a sustainable veto override number for those appropriations bills 
in the House and the Senate.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.
  Everything that we are doing on this bill and in the appropriations 
bills between now and October is--and I know the Republican plan is to 
hope the President just sort of changes his mind and signs all those 
bills; I consider that highly unlikely--so what is going to happen is 
we are going to get to October, and this is all going to blow up anyway 
because the President is not going to sign it.
  He is still there. I know the Republicans won the Senate, but the 
President didn't go anywhere, and the Constitution didn't change, and 
nothing becomes law unless he signs it.
  What I urge is that the President, the House, and the Senate--all 
three--sit down and come up with a budget solution that ends the budget 
caps for all of these bills so we can start working on something that 
is real. I mean, this $38 billion is great, but like I said, between 
here and when it heads up Pennsylvania Avenue, it is going away, and 
then we are going to have to double back and try to fix this anyway.
  I guess all I am saying is we should start now instead of risking 
another government shutdown, risking another continuing resolution, and 
get a true budget agreement that actually addresses the Budget Control 
Act in its entirety, doesn't just find a sort of awkward workaround 
through the overseas contingency operations just to take care of 
Defense.
  I support this level, but not this way. It has too devastating an 
impact on the rest of our budget, and as Secretary of Defense Ash 
Carter said, OCO funding is no way to fund the Defense Department if it 
is not legitimately for OCO expenses.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for the distinguished ranking 
member. I think, however, it is a very hard argument to make that we 
are going to oppose the bill that takes care of our men and women in 
the military because we want to try to pressure Congress and the 
President to reach an agreement on spending on other stuff.
  How could that possibly happen in this bill? It can't. That requires 
other legislation. I think that is a poor reason to oppose this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wittman), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Readiness.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Thornberry and 
the members of the Armed Services Committee on a very strong mark. I 
want to especially thank my distinguished ranking member, Madeleine 
Bordallo, for working with me to address some of our most critical 
readiness challenges.
  The FY16 National Defense Authorization Act makes notable strides in 
restoring full spectrum readiness in helping move us away from what the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, referred to as 
the ``ragged edge'' of being able to execute the current Defense 
strategy.
  Specifically, this year's NDAA prohibits the Department from pursuing 
an additional BRAC round or any other effort aimed at locking in unwise 
force structure reductions during a time of accelerated transition and 
uncertainty, but does task the Department to conduct an assessment of 
where we may be overcapitalized in facilities so Congress can make 
informed decisions going forward.
  We must be strategic about our long-term decisions, such as how we 
treat our headquarters and civilian personnel. We need to keep those 
things in mind. They do important work for this Nation, and on their 
behalf, we owe it to them to take the time to look at how provisions in 
this bill could negatively affect their efforts.
  This year's NDAA also restores many critical shortfalls across the 
force. For example, for the Navy, the bill fully funds the operation 
and maintenance accounts for an 11th carrier and the 10th air wing, 
aircraft maintenance reset, and ship operations.
  For the Army, the bill fully funds collective training exercises 
resulting in 19 Combat Training Center rotations for brigade combat 
teams, as well as fully funding the initial entry rotary

[[Page H2942]]

wing training program and restoring funding to meet 100 percent of the 
flying hour program requirement.
  The bill also provides the Marine Corps with additional resources to 
meet aviation readiness requirements to ensure adequate numbers of 
mission-capable aircraft.

  For the Air Force, the bill provides additional training resources 
for high-demand areas such as pilots for unmanned systems, joint 
terminal controllers, cyber operations, insider threats, and open 
source intelligence.
  Finally, the bill addresses several other shortfalls by resourcing 
many of the Department's most pressing unfunded requirements.
  I am proud of what we have accomplished in this year's bill and 
encourage all of my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself 
just to respond briefly to Mr. Thornberry's remarks.
  The problem, too, why this won't actually fund our troops is it is 
OCO funding to begin with; and, as the Secretary of Defense said, it 
makes it very difficult to do it in any sort of comprehensive way.
  More importantly, when we get to the end of the process, if the 
President doesn't agree to it, then we haven't funded the troops at 
this $38 billion additional level. If that is where he is at on the 
veto on these appropriations bills, then we haven't done it. We simply 
run the clock out for another 4 or 5 months.
  We have got to get to a budget agreement that the President agrees 
to, or we are not going to fund the troops at the level that I agree 
with the chairman that we need to fund them at, and this bill does not 
do that.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Dr. Heck and 
the committee staff for working in a bipartisan manner to develop this 
bill, and I also want to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member 
Smith for their leadership during this process.
  The bill takes important steps toward personnel reform by including 
recommendations from the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission, and I think we all want to thank them for 
their work.
  A key provision is the modernization of the military retirement 
system. While maintaining the 20-year defined retirement, a thrift 
savings plan is added not just for retirees, but for all 
servicemembers. This will positively impact the 83 percent of the 
force--I am going to say it again--83 percent of the force that leaves 
prior to the 20-year mark.
  The NDAA continues the committee's critical work towards the 
prevention of and response to sexual assault. Several provisions will 
increase access to better trained special victims counsel, prevent 
retaliation against servicemembers, and increase awareness and training 
to better aid male victims of sexual assault.
  Once again, the bill does not contain the Department's request to 
administer changes to the commissary system, reductions to the housing 
allowance, or TRICARE reform, but we must address these issues in some 
way in the future. Reform of the military healthcare system is crucial 
to ensure that care is elevated to a level befitting our 
servicemembers, our wounded veterans, retirees, and their families.
  Important issues were addressed in this bill, and I support many of 
the provisions and all the hard work that went into it. However, 
national security is borne from many factions, including the education 
of our people, investment in science and technology, and the support of 
sustainable resources and infrastructure.
  All of these realms, Mr. Chairman, must be funded adequately and 
properly in order for our military to remain the most elite force in 
the world. I am disappointed that this NDAA, although meeting the 
President's budget number request, does not follow the funding rules we 
have abided by in the past, thereby placing our national security in 
jeopardy.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the chair of the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Projection Forces.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
  I want to commend the leadership of Chairman Thornberry in bringing 
this bill to the floor. His leadership has been instrumental in 
tackling many of the tough issues this committee has had to address and 
in getting this bill finished on schedule.
  That being the case, I am absolutely perplexed by a President that 
would even suggest that he would veto a bill or Members of Congress who 
would suggest they would support him in vetoing a bill that gives every 
dime he requested for the support of the men and women who are fighting 
to defend this country and for the national security of this country 
unless he gets everything he wants for the EPA and the IRS and whatever 
part of his other political agenda he wants to keep.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that we put national security and the men 
and women that defend this country first and leave politics for another 
day.
  As to the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, this bill 
fully funds the carrier replacement program, two Virginia class 
submarines, two Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and three littoral 
combat ships.
  It reverses the administration's request to close the Tomahawk 
production line and keeps the Ticonderoga class cruisers in active 
service. It also accelerates the modernization of our existing 
destroyers and increases valuable undersea research and development 
activity and sustains our next-generation tanker and bomber programs.
  I am pleased with the Seapower and Projection Forces' effort in this 
bill and believe that it is another positive step on a long road to 
adequately support our national security. Perhaps that is why the bill 
passed out of committee with such an overwhelming bipartisan margin of 
60-2, with so many people on the other side of the aisle being for it 
before they were against it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for their accepting amendments to address military 
sexual assault, increase oversight, transgender rights, whistleblower 
protection, and equal access to contraception for military women; but, 
despite these improvements and many others from my colleagues, I cannot 
support this bill in its current form.
  Instead of making tough decisions with our limited resources, this 
bill uses an accounting gimmick to further parochial and political 
interests above the readiness of the men and women protecting us and 
the interests of taxpayers we represent.
  We chose to address the sage grouse rather than the elephant in the 
room. By irresponsibly sheltering $38 billion--above the self-imposed 
budget gap--in the OCO account, this bill attempts to decouple national 
security from economic security.
  In reality, these are one and the same. Our military leadership gets 
it, but this seems to be lost on us. Admiral Mullen, former Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs, stated that the deficit that we are unwisely adding 
to in this bill is the single greatest threat to our national security.
  Rather than empowering our military to align our force structure with 
the capabilities we need, we tied their hands; and, rather than 
addressing wasteful overhead, needless spare parts, or outdated weapon 
systems, we chose to ensure that corporations that move their 
headquarters overseas to avoid taxes continue to get Defense contracts.
  Provisions of this bill also attempt to force the DOD to keep our 
detention facility in Guantanamo Bay open. GTMO is a propaganda tool 
for our enemies and a distraction for our allies. Those aren't my 
words; they are George W. Bush's and 15 to 20 retired generals and 
admirals.
  Another provision of this bill prevents the military from saving 
lives by

[[Page H2943]]

purchasing alternative fuels. Costly refueling operations and convoys 
are extraordinarily dangerous; yet, because the existence of climate 
change is a political talking point, somehow, servicemember safety is 
second rate.
  The military is not separate from the rest of the country. Along with 
defending us, members of the military need to drive on roads that are 
not crumbling, cross bridges that are not falling, and send their 
children to public universities that are not bankrupt.
  It also makes it difficult to fund basic research, which has been a 
key element to our global competitive advantage and the source of much 
of the technology that our military relies on.
  We are choosing to spend vast quantities of money on planes that the 
military does not want, while refusing to address problems that 
everyone in the Nation, including military members, needs fixed.
  We have to face the reality that we can't keep our Nation secure if 
we let our country rot from the inside.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the National Defense Authorization Act and also to thank Chairman 
Mac Thornberry for his leadership and hard work to bring this important 
bill to the floor.
  Committee support was bipartisan--60-2--and politics should not be 
raised to obstruct. I am honored to serve as the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, which oversees some 
of the most forward-looking and critical aspects of the Department of 
Defense, including defense-wide science and technology efforts; Special 
Operations Forces; Cyber Command and the cyber forces of the Department 
of Defense; and many other programs and activities that deal with 
evolving and emerging threats, from weapons of mass destruction, to 
Putin's aggression against Ukraine, to the rise of the Islamic State of 
Iraq and the Levant, ISIL or Daesh. The Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee has been active in conducting oversight in 
all of these important areas.
  It is also worth noting that much of the oversight conducted by the 
subcommittee is classified and takes place behind closed doors where we 
review and remain current on sensitive activities and programs involved 
in Department of Defense intelligence capabilities, Special Operations 
Forces, and cyber forces. The subcommittee takes this sensitive 
oversight role very seriously as we consider Department of Defense 
authorities and programs that enable these sensitive activities.
  Overall, our portion of the bill provides for stronger cyber 
operations capabilities, safeguards our technological superiority, and 
enables our Special Operations Forces with the resources and 
authorities to counter terrorism, unconventional warfare threats, and 
to defeat weapons of mass destruction.
  I thank Chairman Thornberry, and I would like to thank my friend and 
subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Jim Langevin of Rhode Island.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I want to extend my 
compliments to the chairman of the committee for his first NDAA bill 
and for the way he conducted a 19-hour markup that went until close to 
5 o'clock in the morning. I also thank the ranking member, who provided 
just really great leadership in terms of moving that process along, and 
the strong vote that came out of the committee.
  On the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee--and Mr. Forbes 
ticked off some of the priorities that came through the report--I just 
want to add one item which, I think, is really important to note. In 
terms of the future challenges for the shipbuilding of this country, 
the replacement program for the ballistic submarine program, the Ohio 
replacement program, is going to cost, roughly, $70 billion to $80 
billion. It has been identified by Secretary Carter on down as the top 
priority of the Defense Department as well as the Department of the 
Navy. The question is not about whether or not we are going to build 
that sub. The question, really, is: What is going to happen to the rest 
of the shipbuilding account?
  This year's NDAA bill activates the national sea-based deterrence 
fund, which is an off-shipbuilding budget account to build this once-
in-a-multigeneration program, using clear precedent of the past of the 
national sea-based deterrence account, which took that program off the 
shipbuilding budget's shoulders, and we are using that same approach to 
make sure that, in meeting this critical need, the Ohio replacement 
program is not going to suffocate the rest of the shipbuilding account. 
$1.4 billion is going to be infused into this fund with the Defense 
Authorization Act, and that is going to provide a path forward to make 
sure that we meet this critical need as well as to make sure that we 
have a viable, 300-plus-ship Navy, which every defense review over the 
last few years or so has identified as critical.
  This is an important item which, I feel, as part of this evening's 
debate, should be identified, and it is something that was a bipartisan 
effort on both sides of the Seapower and Projection Forces 
Subcommittee. I look forward to a vigorous debate over the next 2 days.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chair of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and 
Land Forces.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1735, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
  I had the privilege of serving as the chairman of the Tactical Air 
and Land Forces Subcommittee. I want to thank my ranking member, 
Loretta Sanchez, for her support in completing the markup of this bill, 
and I want to extend my thanks to the subcommittee's vice chairman, 
Paul Cook. I also want to thank our chairman, Chairman Thornberry, for 
his leadership and his bipartisan work.
  Now, I had a sentence here where I said I was thanking Ranking Member 
Smith for his work on a bipartisan basis because of his support for 
this bill when it came out of the committee, but due to his recent 
opposition to this bill, I am going to cross that part out.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee's focus, though, has been on a bipartisan 
basis, and you will hear the members stand and talk about the 
provisions that we worked on on a bipartisan basis, and that is why it 
actually deserves, I think, everyone's support.
  It supports the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. 
It provides the equipment they need and the support that they deserve. 
I believe that the committee's bill strikes the appropriate balance 
between equipping our military to effectively carry out its mission and 
providing oversight.
  Under this bill, Congress provides additional funding for new 
National Guard Blackhawk helicopters, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, Navy 
strike fighters, unmanned aerial systems, lethality upgrades for 
Stryker combat vehicles, improved recovery vehicles, Javelin antitank 
missiles, and aircraft survivability improvements for Apache attack 
helicopters.

  We support the National Guard and Reserve component. This bill 
provides additional funds as part of a National Guard and Reserve 
equipment account to address significant equipment shortages and 
modernization equipment for the Guard and Reserve.
  This bill also calls for continued action to eradicate sexual assault 
in the military. I want to thank Congresswoman Tsongas, Chairman 
Wilson, my ranking member, Ms. Sanchez, and Ranking Member Susan Davis 
for working on a bipartisan basis for these provisions. This bill 
provides greater access to Special Victims' Counsel for Department of 
Defense civilian employees. It addresses issues of retaliation against 
victims and those who report sex crimes. It enhances sexual assault 
prevention for male victims. It prohibits the release of victims' 
mental health records without an order from a judge, and it provides 
additional training for our military leaders.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

[[Page H2944]]

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Readiness.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Ranking Member Adam Smith 
and my dear friend, Chairman Wittman, for working collaboratively with 
me on the readiness section of the NDAA.
  I believe that this bill provides our servicemen and -women with what 
they need to be prepared to face the challenges that are constantly 
thrown at them by a dangerous and unpredictable world. However, as 
Chairman Thornberry often likes to remind us, this gets us to the bear, 
ragged, lower edge of what is required to respond to the full spectrum 
of the challenges we face.
  In addition to funding our readiness requirements, our bill looks to 
the future by requiring GAO reports on Army and Air Force training 
requirements, a review of the Army's Pacific Pathways program, and an 
assessment of the adequacy of support assets for the Asia-Pacific 
rebalance. These reports will provide the information necessary to 
enable us to determine whether the programs are achieving their 
intended purposes or will allow us to take corrective action if they 
are not. The bill also authorizes a 2.3 percent pay increase for all 
servicemembers.
  The bill continues our strong tradition here in the House of 
supporting the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. I am pleased that 
this bill authorizes funding for the relocation of marines from Okinawa 
to Guam and authorizes the improvement of critical infrastructure on 
Guam. Further, we have provided clear language that, for the first time 
ever, shows support from Congress on the need for continued progress on 
the development of a Futenma replacement facility as the only option 
for the marines on Okinawa. This bill also requires the administration 
to develop a Presidential policy directive that would provide guidance 
to each of the agencies and departments on how to resource and support 
the rebalance strategy.
  As I have been saying for some time, the best thing we could do to 
increase our readiness above the minimum threshold that we are on is to 
eliminate sequestration and get away from the gimmick of using OCO 
funding, which adds to our Nation's credit card bill. I agree with the 
President and with the Secretary of Defense that OCO funding is not a 
permanent solution and that it hampers DOD's ability to utilize funding 
in a responsible manner and to plan for future years. I do hope, Mr. 
Chairman, that this Congress can, once and for all, find a solution and 
fix this bill to end sequestration across the board.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chair of the Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 1735, the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, 
the 54th consecutive Defense Authorization Act, which recently passed 
out of the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 60-2.
  I want to thank Chairman Thornberry for his leadership in getting us 
here today. Without his guidance, we might have been here with a bill 
that failed to provide the $612 billion requested by the President for 
national defense. I wouldn't have been able to have supported that 
bill. Instead, we do have one that does meet the minimum needs as 
outlined by Chairman Martin Dempsey.
  I am also particularly proud of the provisions of the Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee's jurisdiction:
  We authorize $475 million for the Israeli missile defense, including 
the U.S.-based coproduction;
  We direct development of U.S. military capabilities to counter 
Russia's violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. 
Putin must recognize that his illegal actions will have real 
consequences;
  We require the adaptation of the Aegis Ashore missile defense sites 
the U.S. is deploying in Romania and Poland so that they are capable of 
self-defense against airborne threats. It is simply immoral to deploy 
U.S. personnel to these sites and then remove an intrinsic self-defense 
capability;
  We strengthen our decision made last year to end U.S. reliance on 
Russian rocket engines by putting real money behind a new rocket engine 
program;
  We set priorities in NNSA by controlling the size of the bureaucracy, 
ending ineffective nonproliferation programs, and seriously tackling 
the $3.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog that we suffer at our 
nuclear weapons complexes. We can no longer ask the best and the 
brightest we have to work in decrepit infrastructure.
  I am also pleased that language was included to prohibit furloughs at 
Working Capital Fund facilities, like the Anniston Army Depot, provided 
there is funded workload. Also included was my amendment with 
Congressman Rob Bishop that would exempt civilian jobs funded by the 
working capital fund, like those jobs at the depot, from the planned 20 
percent reduction at headquarters.
  The Anniston Army Depot is one of the largest employers in east 
Alabama and is the most efficient production and maintenance facility 
the Army has.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the chair of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 
2016 NDAA, and I want to thank Chairman Thornberry for bringing this 
important bill to the floor.
  We have a proud tradition in the Armed Services Committee of 
supporting our national defense in a bipartisan manner, and I hope that 
tradition will continue this year.
  This country is facing a vast array of threats, both from state and 
nonstate actors, and I am pleased that the NDAA provides for the 
resources needed to address those threats today while also preparing 
for those of tomorrow.
  As Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee chairwoman, I am proud 
of the provisions included to address issues related to detainee 
transfers. I remain frustrated and concerned with the administration's 
lack of cooperation in the investigation of the Taliban Five transfer. 
I consider it prudent to withhold funding from DOD until more 
information and support is given so that we may continue proper 
oversight.
  This bill is good news also for the men and women at Fort Leonard 
Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base. One of my top priorities since I got 
to Congress has been to support Whiteman commanders' requests for the 
construction of the Consolidated Stealth Operations and Nuclear Alert 
Facility. This facility is included in this NDAA, and it will bring 
substantial, immediate, and long-term benefits to the base and to its 
B-2 operations. Additionally, I requested the provision to authorize 12 
additional F/A-18F Super Hornets. These aircraft will fill an immediate 
need in the fight against ISIL and allow them to be converted to 
airborne electronic attack Growlers later, if necessary.
  After a marathon 18-hour-long debate throughout the day and night, my 
colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee and I have produced a 
bipartisan bill that allocates vital funds for our Nation's defense. I 
am proud of this bill, and I urge Members to support its passage.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. COURTNEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Heck), chair of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
  Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, the military personnel provisions 
of H.R. 1735 are the product of an open, bipartisan process. The mark 
provides our warfighters, retirees, and their families the care and 
support they need, deserve, and earned.
  Some highlights from this year's proposal include continued emphasis 
on the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
program by addressing shortfalls in the program identified in the 
Judicial Proceedings Panel initial report.
  There is also rigorous oversight and consideration of the 
recommendations made by the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission. Specifically, the mark would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish 
a joint formulary that includes

[[Page H2945]]

medications critical for the transition of an individual undergoing 
treatment related to sleep disorders, pain control, and behavioral 
health conditions.
  It requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a unified medical 
command to oversee medical services to the Armed Forces and other DOD 
health care beneficiaries.
  And it modernizes the current military retirement system by blending 
the current 20-year defined benefit plan with a defined contribution 
plan allowing servicemembers to contribute to a portable account that 
includes a government automatic contribution and matching program.
  It also requires the Secretary of Defense and the military service 
chiefs to strengthen and increase the frequency of financial literacy 
and preparedness training, establishing a more robust training and 
education program for servicemembers and their families.
  I want to thank Ranking Member Davis and her staff for their 
contributions to this process. We were joined by an active, informed, 
and dedicated group of subcommittee members, and their recommendations 
and priorities are clearly reflected in the NDAA for fiscal year 2016.
  Mr. Chairman, I have always said that I felt myself lucky to serve on 
the Armed Services Committee because I thought it was the most 
bipartisan committee in Congress. We, over at least the past 4 years, 
have been unified in making sure that our men and women in uniform have 
the resources they need to keep themselves and our Nation safe.
  That is why today I find myself very confused and disappointed by the 
comments made on the floor. This is the National Defense Authorization 
Act, whose sole purpose is to provide for the common defense, not 
education, not transportation, not any other government function.
  To vote against this bill is to breach the faith that we have with 
our men and women in uniform and is unconscionable. I, therefore, urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Franks), the distinguished vice chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join in this chorus of support for the 
fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. I want to 
sincerely congratulate Chairman Thornberry in this, his inaugural bill 
as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which passed with a small 
vote of 60-2.
  While this bill sets DOD policy, it also reflects the House-passed 
budget figure for authorized spending at the Department of Defense. It 
represents the will of Congress that we ought to be spending more on 
national security, as nearly every corner of the world has become less 
safe under President Obama's continued foreign policy failures.
  The fiscal year 2016 NDAA makes needed reforms to strengthen civilian 
retiree packages and begins to reform the way that we buy weapons and 
other systems at the Pentagon, which will save tax dollars for years to 
come.
  I also want to thank the chairman and the committee for including 
some of my amendments to reestablish the EMP Commission, beginning an 
initial concept for development of a space-based missile defense 
system, and guaranteed assistance to the Kurdistan regional government.
  As we know, President Obama has, unfortunately, issued a veto threat 
toward this bill. Mr. Chairman, the NDAA has been passed year after 
year for 53 straight years, under both Democrat and Republican 
administrations.
  Among the provisions the President stands ready to reject are a joint 
formulary to ease troop transition from the Department of Defense to 
the VA; providing aid to Ukraine in the midst of Russian-backed 
attacks; providing full funding to the Department of Defense which he, 
himself, requested; a stronger missile defense and cyber capabilities; 
a greater accountability for political reconciliation in Iraq; greater 
protection of our troops from sexual assault; and better pay and 
benefits to those who serve us so that we may stand here and debate 
this bill today. These are among the provisions of this bill Mr. Obama 
opposes.
  I want just to reiterate to my colleagues that this bill did pass out 
of the Armed Services Committee 60-2, and this list of accomplishments 
is too long. So I will just express congratulations again to Mr. 
Thornberry for his leadership under this massive undertaking. I urge 
adoption of the bill.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond briefly 
when basically it is called unconscionable to oppose something. Aside 
from being unbelievably arrogant, it is wrong to say that there is no 
reason whatsoever to vote against this bill.
  I mentioned earlier that there were--I am sorry, if he can call me 
``unconscionable,'' I suppose I can call him ``arrogant.'' I don't 
know; it seems fair.
  At any rate, there is another reason not to vote for this bill, and 
that is that it underfunds readiness once again. It says this matches 
the President's budget, and overall it does, but it has $2.4 billion 
less in money for readiness. Last year's bill had $1.5 billion less in 
readiness. Why?
  Because every effort that the Department of Defense makes to cut just 
about anything--the movements that they wanted to make to start a BRAC, 
the changes that they wanted to make to the National Guard to save 
money, the plan they had to lay up 11 cruisers, the efforts to get rid 
of the A-10--efforts to move anything around are blocked by this 
committee, and they take that money out of readiness to fund what 
really amounts to a personal priority.
  What does it mean to take money out of readiness? It means that our 
troops do not get the training that they need to be prepared to fight. 
It is just that simple. Readiness money is the money for the ammo. It 
is the money for the fuel. It is the money for the mechanic to fix 
equipment. That has been going down and down and down and down as we 
block every effort to save money anyplace else because just about 
anything the Pentagon is going to do is going to affect somebody's 
district. The A-10 is in somebody's district. Every other project is 
made in somebody's district.
  We protected all that at the expense of readiness, and I think that 
is the worst thing that we can do. It has created a situation where we 
may well be sending our men and women off to fight unprepared and 
untrained. And you talk to the people who are serving. They are not 
able to fly as much as they used to. They are not able to train as much 
as they used to. They are not able to use their weapons as much as they 
used to because of those continuous cuts to readiness, because we fund 
other priorities. That is number one.
  Number two. Funding through OCO, as the Secretary of Defense has 
said, is not the same as actually funding the Department of Defense 
through a regular appropriations process. It is one-time money. What 
the Secretary of Defense has said is:
  Giving us this one-time money makes it impossible to plan. We don't 
know if it is going to be there next year. You can't have a 5-year plan 
under OCO money. You are restricted in where you can spend it and how 
you can spend it. So this is not adequately funding our troops.

  I do take offense at the notion that opposition to this bill means 
that you just don't support our troops. That is the bumper sticker--
sorry, I won't use that word. It is wrong to say that about anyone who 
opposes this bill. I oppose this bill because I don't think it does 
adequately fund our troops. It doesn't take care of the budget problems 
that are in front of us.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. The only way to adequately fund our troops 
is to get rid of the Budget Control Act, so we can actually fund it 
under regular order with a normal amount of money that allows them to 
plan for over 5 years.
  Lastly, I am sorry, but the infrastructure of this country matters. 
The fact that bridges are falling down matters. The fact that we don't 
have

[[Page H2946]]

enough money to do research on critical disease matters. Yes, it is 
important to defend this country. Yes, that is the paramount duty. But 
if the country itself crumbles while we have a military to defend it, 
that too is a problem and one I think worth fighting for, worth 
standing up and saying we are not going to accept a budget that guts 
all of these other things and uses the overseas contingency operation 
as a work-around to fund defense.
  It is basically acting like this is free money. Well, it is not free 
money. It costs, and it undermines the entire rest of the budget. Let's 
get rid of the Budget Control Act. Let's get rid of the caps. Let's get 
rid of sequestration. We don't do that in this bill, and it is my 
contention that if we don't do that, then we are not adequately funding 
our troops and adequately funding our defense.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just make two brief points. One is the extra OCO 
funding that has been so criticized is 100 percent for operations and 
maintenance, for readiness. That is what it all is devoted to in this 
mark.
  Secondly, if we start holding our troops hostage because we want more 
spending over here or we want some other change in law over there, 
where does that stop? Where does that stop? What are we not going to 
hold our troops hostage to because a Senate and a House and a President 
can't agree on some other issue? I think it is dangerous to start down 
that road.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman of the committee for his great work 
on this bill and for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2016. This is an important bill that provides 
funding and authority for the men and women in uniform who are willing 
to go in harm's way to keep our country safe. This bill takes some of 
the important steps to reform the Department of Defense, both in 
acquisition and in retirement benefits. It includes a number of 
provisions that I worked on regarding military space, missile defense, 
and tunnel detection, to name just a few.
  This is a bipartisan bill. Dozens, if not hundreds, of provisions 
were authored by Democrats. It came out of committee by a vote of 60-2. 
Only one Democrat voted against it in committee. Nothing substantive 
has changed; only now Nancy Pelosi is calling the shots, and Democrats 
have flip-flopped.
  I understand that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to increase 
taxes and increase spending on domestic programs, but that debate 
should not be fought on the backs of our troops. If you vote against 
this bill, it is a vote to cut our defense budget. It is even a vote 
against President Obama's requested defense budget.
  Today we have troops doing humanitarian relief in Nepal, dropping 
bombs on ISIS, fighting the Taliban, deterring Iran in the Straits of 
Hormuz, and supporting our European allies in the face of Russian 
aggression. Now is not the time to cut the defense budget. Let's 
support our troops, not Nancy Pelosi's partisan agenda. Vote ``yes'' on 
H.R. 1735.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Stefanik), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on 
Readiness.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal 
year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, and I would like to first 
thank and applaud Chairman Thornberry on his leadership and commitment 
to this thoughtful and comprehensive bill. Additionally, I am grateful 
to our subcommittee chairs for their exhaustive efforts.
  While the end results may not be perfect, it is a strong, bipartisan 
piece of legislation that I am proud to support. Our committee spent 19 
hours debating this bill, and all members put forward their ideas. We 
worked together across the aisle, which led to significant strides in 
maintaining and establishing our Nation's defense policy.
  In today's unstable global environment, we are asking our Armed 
Forces to do more with less over and over again, and as a 
representative of Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain Division, such a 
high operational tempo unit, I too am concerned about long-term impacts 
due to the budget cap constraints.
  Recently, I had the honor to attend a small congressional delegation 
visit to CENTCOM's AOR. On this trip, I was able to get a firsthand 
perspective on the detrimental effects these budget caps have on our 
Nation's overseas missions.
  Thankfully, the fiscal year 2016 NDAA provides our U.S. Armed Forces 
with the tools and resources to maintain current efforts, and it passed 
out of our committee on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 60-2. I 
want to remind my colleagues, 60-2.
  Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for putting forth a great bill that I 
am pleased to support. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, 
particularly those colleagues on the committee who already have.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
National Defense Authorization Act. It is a bipartisan bill that passed 
the full Armed Services Committee with nearly unanimous support, as we 
have already heard.
  This bill meets our national security needs; it cares for our troops, 
invests in next-generation weaponry, and brings necessary reforms to 
the Pentagon.
  No bill is perfect, and I urge my colleagues not to allow the perfect 
to be the enemy of the good. And there is certainly a lot of good in 
this bill.
  As vice chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, I am 
especially proud of our work to care for our troops and their families. 
This bill acts on 11 of the 15 recommendations of the Commission on 
Military Pay and Benefits, including things like revamping our military 
retirement system to bring it into the 21st century, providing 
increased financial literacy for our troops.
  I am especially pleased that the bill includes an initiative I 
proposed to help our retiring military personnel transition to civilian 
jobs.
  Importantly, this bill precludes another round of base realignment 
and closure, or BRAC, which threatens to shutter military bases around 
the country. We have seen that BRAC is simply not cost effective. In my 
home State of New Jersey, we have seen the devastation it brings to 
local communities. The last round of BRAC cost $14 billion more than it 
was supposed to, and the savings were reduced by 73 percent. It doesn't 
even break even for 13 years.
  I am a businessman, and spending more to save less while you ruin 
local economies and weaken our military just makes no sense.
  Finally, this bill fulfills our constitutional duty to provide for 
the common defense of our Nation. We face new threats like the Islamic 
State, a newly resurgent Russia, and our military has to be ready to 
face them head-on.
  This bill funds the Pentagon at the level it needs and avoids the 
disastrous blind cuts of sequestration that hurt our military's 
capability and readiness.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Let me emphasize again that there are a lot of good things in this 
bill. I won't disagree with anything that was said. The reform agenda 
that Mr. Thornberry has, I think, taken a leadership role on is 
incredibly important, and I think that is a huge positive.
  There are a lot of programs in this bill that are absolutely critical 
to our

[[Page H2947]]

national defense, but the most critical thing, I think, to our national 
defense is getting us back to the normal budget process, getting us out 
from under the Budget Control Act, out from under the budget caps, and 
having a normal appropriations process. If we vote for this bill, we 
allow that unnatural process where the Pentagon does not have long-term 
funding and long-term predictability to continue.
  The biggest thing that has changed since we were in committee is, 
number one, the President did not issue a veto threat. I actually had a 
conversation with leadership before we went to committee as to where 
they were at on that. The fact that the President has now said that he 
will not support this bill with the additional OCO funding is a major 
change. It means that what we are working on here is not going to 
happen. And that is not political; that is substantive. We have to have 
a bill that the President will sign if we are, in fact, going to fund 
our troops.
  The second thing that happened was the budget resolution, which was 
being debated back and forth. The House passed one and the Senate 
passed one, but they came together and it became clear that the budget 
resolution was the budget resolution, and they were locking in place 
the budget resolution that I have described that takes advantage of the 
OCO fund to basically create free money--money that doesn't count under 
the Budget Control Act--to plus-up defense and keep everything else 
where it is at.
  Once that was locked in and the President looked at that and said he 
would not support that appropriations process, we created a situation 
where what we are doing here is not going to pass. It is not going to 
be sustainable. We are not going to fund our troops doing it this way. 
Unless we make those other changes in the budget process, we are just 
not going to get there.
  On the gentleman's comments about the BRAC round, the military said 
they are over capacity in facilities. They are spending money on 
facilities that they don't need to spend just because they can't close 
those bases. Yes, in the short term it costs more money, but in the 
long term, the first four rounds of BRAC have saved us hundreds of 
billions of dollars over the long term.
  So not being willing to do BRAC, not being willing to make cuts in 
certain programs, is undermining readiness.
  Yes, it is good that we took the OCO money. And because OCO money is 
so fungible, you can do it this way. You took the rest of the money and 
you funded all of these programs that the Pentagon was trying to cut, 
and then you tried to backfill as much as you possibly could with the 
OCO money and readiness. And that is better than not, but it is still 
less to $2.4 billion short of what the President's budget was on 
readiness.
  And I still contend that we are shortchanging readiness to fund the 
priorities that are more parochial and more political, and that is 
something that I mentioned last year that put me on the edge of whether 
or not I could support last year's bill. Because at the end of the day, 
the one thing I think we owe our troops is that if we send them into 
battle, they are ready. They are trained and they are ready to fight. 
If they don't have the equipment and they don't have the readiness 
dollars, then they won't be. So for those two reasons, I am opposing 
this bill.
  I am hopeful between now and when we come back from conference that 
we can reconcile this issue and that we can actually adequately fund 
the military and work through this, because I totally agree we need to 
do this. But where we are at right now is a bill that I don't think 
does adequately fund our troops in a predictable enough way to give 
them the training they need and to give the Pentagon leadership the 
predictability they need in terms of budgeting to have a defense 
budget.
  So, reluctantly, I will oppose this bill. And I hope we continue to 
work to get to a bill that we can support in the end. I do not view 
this in any way as the end of the bipartisan tradition of our 
committee. We worked very closely together on putting together this 
bill, and we will continue to work closely together to find a bill that 
did actually pass through the entire process.
  Again, if the President doesn't sign it, then all of our work is for 
naught, and it is the troops who suffer. So we are going to have to 
work on finding a way to reach an agreement with all the people who 
need to approve this bill before it becomes law. I pledge to continue 
to do that.
  I do want to thank the chairman and the Republicans on this issue. I 
think they have done a fabulous job of working on this bill. I just 
disagree on that one fundamental point that, frankly, has more to do 
with the Budget Committee than it does with our committee, but it does 
have a profound impact on our product.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just take up where the gentleman from Washington 
left off.
  You have heard from a number of speakers that the product before us 
is a bipartisan product, that our committee works in a bipartisan way. 
Just to put a little bit of quantification on that, over the course of 
our markup in committee, 96 amendments sponsored by Democratic members 
of the committee were adopted; and prior to that, at least 110 specific 
requests by Democratic members of the committee were incorporated into 
the committee and subcommittee marks. So it leaves one wondering: If 
Democratic Members are forced to oppose the bill because of something 
the Budget Committee hasn't done, how can this bipartisan tradition 
continue?
  That is one of the things that concerns me, because it is something 
that I think we are all very proud of, that we worked together, that we 
put the national defense interests ahead of these other differences 
that we have.
  This makes it harder when we don't fix the budget or we don't fix 
health care or we don't fix the environment or we don't fix taxes. 
There is no end if that is the way that this is going to go.
  I think it is ironic, Mr. Chairman. I believe we need to find a 
better way to impose fiscal responsibility in our government than the 
Budget Control Act, and I am absolutely anxious to work with any Member 
who wants to find a better way to go ahead. But we can't do it on this 
bill. It is impossible.
  And so what we are doing, for those who would oppose this bill, is to 
hold the pay and benefits of our troops, all of these decisions, we are 
holding that hostage to something that we can't resolve here in this 
measure.
  As the gentleman from Washington said at some point, this is not the 
end of the process. This is a step in the process. There are a lot of 
things to go with appropriation bills and conference reports and so 
forth before the President ever has an opportunity to veto a bill. As a 
matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, this President has threatened to veto, I 
think, pretty much all the defense authorization bills at some point in 
the process. That is not a reason for us not to take the next step.
  I think we should build upon the bipartisan work that came out of 
committee. I suspect there will be bipartisan work with amendments from 
Republicans and Democrats on the floor and that we should pass this 
measure, go to conference with the Senate, and keep working towards the 
end of the process where, hopefully, we can have something better than 
the Budget Control Act. But to say I am not going to support our troops 
unless we do that first I don't think is the proper way to go.
  This is a normal budget process. We have a House and Senate budget 
resolution for the first time in years.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. It is not a matter of not supporting our 
troops. To say that the decision to oppose the defense bill is because 
you don't support the troops I hope the gentleman would agree is not 
where we are coming from.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Reclaiming my time, I do not mean to say that is the 
intention of the gentleman or those who might oppose this bill. It is 
the effect, however, because there are 40 essential authorities that 
have to be in a defense authorization bill. One of those authorities is 
to pay the troops. Without those authorities, it doesn't happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill should be supported, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be submitted 
during consideration of H.R. 1735:


[[Page H2948]]


                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2015.
     Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Thornberry: I am writing concerning H.R. 1735, the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
       This legislation contains provisions within the Committee 
     on Agriculture's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result of your 
     having consulted with the Committee and in order to expedite 
     this bill for floor consideration, the Committee on 
     Agriculture will forego action on the bill. This is being 
     done on the basis of our mutual understanding that doing so 
     will in no way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Agriculture with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees, or to any future jurisdictional claim over the 
     subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding, and would request that you include a copy 
     of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and 
     in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of 
     this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                               K. Michael Conaway,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
     Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2016. I agree that the Committee on Agriculture has a valid 
     jurisdictional claim to a provision in this important 
     legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not 
     to request a referral in the interest of expediting 
     consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
     sequential referral, the Committee on Agriculture is not 
     waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 
     will be included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                    William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
         House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the 
           Workforce,
                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
     Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to H.R. 1735, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. Thank you for 
     consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     with regard to HR. 1735 on those matters within the 
     Committee's jurisdiction.
       In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of 
     H.R. 1735, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will 
     forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so 
     only with the understanding this procedural route will not be 
     construed to prejudice my Committee's jurisdictional interest 
     and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar 
     legislation and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my 
     Committee in the future.
       I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
     outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in 
     a conference with the Senate. I also request you include our 
     exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on 
     H.R. 1735 and in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this bill on the House Floor. Thank you for 
     your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Kline,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
     Hon. John Kline,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2016. I agree that the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
     Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
     committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                    William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
     Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 1735, the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.'' While the 
     legislation does contain provisions within the jurisdiction 
     of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee will 
     not request a sequential referral so that it can proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
       The Committee takes this action with the understanding that 
     its jurisdictional interests over this and similar 
     legislation are in no way diminished or altered, and that the 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as 
     such legislation moves forward. The Committee also reserves 
     the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference 
     on such legislation and requests your support when such a 
     request is made.
       Finally, I would appreciate a response to this letter 
     confirming this understanding and ask that a copy of our 
     exchange of letters be included in the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of H.R. 1735 on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2016. 1 agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has 
     valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
     important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 
     foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 
     on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                    William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
                                                         Chairman.

  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Babin) having assumed the chair, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, 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. 1735) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________