[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 143 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6768-H6778]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1735, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2016

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 449, I call 
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1735) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 449, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 29, 2015, at page H6337.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.


                             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 insert extraneous material on the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 1735.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the first and most important thing I can say today is 
that this conference report is good for the troops and it is good for 
the country, and nothing that I or anybody else is going to say in this 
next hour is going to be more important than that one basic 
proposition.
  Now, we may hear a variety of excuses, ifs, ands and buts about this, 
that or the other thing, and I certainly don't agree with every 
provision in this conference report.
  But in pulling this bill together, I had to put aside personal 
preferences and party considerations and other things because getting a 
bill passed and enacted that is good for the troops and good for the 
country is more important than anything else.
  The second point I want to make is that this bill is the product of 
work from Members from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the 
Capitol. About half of the amendments that were adopted in committee 
and on the floor were from Democratic Members.
  Democratic conferees played a substantial role in shaping this final 
conference report. And if you look at the

[[Page H6769]]

substance of what is in the bill, you can see major contributions from 
both sides.
  As a matter of fact, we hear a lot these days about regular order. 
Well, this bill went through regular order through the committee, with 
211 amendments that were adopted on the floor, when 131 amendments were 
adopted through a regular conference, with a Senate-passed bill for the 
first time in years, and now it is back here for approval.
  So after going through regular order and all that that entails, if 
there is still partisan opposition, it leads some to ask why. Why 
bother?
  The third point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is just a reminder to 
Members that this is a dangerous world, and it is getting more 
dangerous by the minute. Just look at the headlines that are in today's 
papers.
  Russia has conducted airstrikes in Syria not against ISIS, but 
against the moderate opposition forces, and Russia is telling us, the 
United States, when and where we can fly our airplanes in Syria.
  Meanwhile, the Palestinians have decided they are going to back away 
from all the agreements that they have with Israel.
  Meanwhile, the Taliban is on the move in Afghanistan, and U.S. 
American troops are sent in to help turn the tide. That doesn't even 
count the things that are happening in Ukraine, North Korea, Iran, 
China building islands out in the Pacific.
  So the point of that is that this is no time for political games. 
This is the time to come together and pass a bill that helps provide 
for the country's security. I think that is exactly what this bill 
does.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the exact amount of money that the 
President requested for national defense. Now, we did not agree with 
every single program request.
  We made some different judgments, like preserving the A-10, and it is 
being used today in the Middle East. We thought we needed not to retire 
some of the ships that the President wanted to retire. So there were 
some adjustments. But at the end of the day, the total is exactly the 
amount the President asked for.
  Now, some of those programs are under different labels. But, frankly, 
whether you call it base funding, OCO funding, or pumpernickel--it 
doesn't matter--it is money that goes to the troops.
  If you are a U.S. soldier today on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan 
or if you are a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who are supporting 
them from the United States or anywhere else, do you really care what 
the label on the money is? What you care about is that the money to 
help for provide your operation and maintenance is provided.
  Of course, there are many other parts of this bill, Mr. Speaker: 
acquisition reform, which is a significant first step to make sure the 
taxpayers get more value for the money they spend; personnel reform, 
including a new retirement system.
  Today 83 percent of the people who serve in the military walk away 
with no retirement at all. That changes under this bill.
  So Members who are going to vote against this bill are going to tell 
83 percent of the people who serve in the military: You are going to 
continue to walk away with nothing.
  This bill requires the DOD and VA to have a joint formulary for sleep 
disorders, pain management, and mental health issues. We have been told 
those are some of the most important steps we can take.
  It takes additional steps to combat sexual assault. It authorizes 
defensive weapons for Ukraine. It gives the President more tools to 
battle ISIS in Iraq, to provide weapons directly to the Kurds and Sunni 
forces.
  We take steps to help defend this country against missiles.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  We take steps in this bill to help defend our country against missile 
attacks, which is particularly important now that Iran is going to have 
a bunch more money to put into their missiles. But what we also do is 
support the Israeli missile defense program with more money than was 
asked for by the President.
  So, Mr. Speaker, my point is this bill is good for the troops and it 
is good for the country, and that ought to override everything else. It 
should be passed today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  First of all, let me agree on two points with the chairman. There is 
a lot that is good in this bill. There is no question about that. And I 
want to thank the chairman for his leadership in making that happen.
  I think the conference committee process was a model for how the 
conference committee is supposed to go. The minority was included. 
There was robust debate about a large number of issues. There were 
points when we thought we couldn't resolve them and we did. And I think 
there is a lot that is good in this bill.
  I also think, without question, without debate, that this is a very, 
very dangerous time for our country. No doubt about it. The chairman 
laid out some of the challenges--there are many, many more--with what 
is going on in the Middle East, certainly with Russia, with how we deal 
with China. It is a very challenging time for national security, and we 
need to be as strong as we possibly can.
  But the one area where I disagree--and I think the chairman also 
correctly states the fundamental question: Is this good for our 
country? Is it good for our troops?
  I don't believe that it is. It is not good for our country, and it is 
not good for our troops. It does, in fact, matter where the money comes 
from for a couple of reasons.
  First of all, by the budget gimmick that the Budget Committee in the 
House and the Senate put together, by using overseas contingency 
operations funds for things that are not overseas contingency 
operations funds--and this was all done as a dodge to get around doing 
what we need to do, which is to lift the budget caps. Because, you see, 
the OCO funding, for some reason is not counted as real money. It is 
money. It is $38 billion.
  But it enables the conservatives in the Republican Party to say that 
they have maintained the budget caps while still spending $38 billion 
more dollars, which is incredibly hypocritical and a terrible way to 
budget.
  But here are two reasons why that is bad for our country and bad for 
our troops. Number one, it does not lift the budget caps. These budget 
caps are in place, I believe, for another 9 or 8 years. Unless we lift 
those budget caps, we are harming our troops and we are harming our 
country.
  This bill dodging that issue is precisely a national security issue 
because, until we lift those caps, the Department of Defense has no 
idea how much money they are going to have. All right?
  OCO is one-time money. That is why it is not as good as lifting the 
budget caps and giving the ability to do the 5- and 10-year planning 
that they do, to do multi-year projects so that they can actually have 
a plan going forward. That hurts national security.
  The inability to raise the budget caps in this bill and 
appropriations process is a critical blow to our troops and to our 
national security.
  The second reason this is important is because the OCO funding that 
is in this bill is not going to happen; all right?
  Part of it is because the President is going to veto it. But the 
larger part of it is the Senate, as they have been unable to do for a 
number of years, has not passed any appropriations bills because they 
have rejected their own budget resolution.
  So this $38 billion in OCO funding that we are going to hear about, 
all this great money, is not going to happen because the appropriators 
have said it is not going to happen.
  So to have a national defense authorizing bill with $38 billion in 
imaginary money is not good for our troops and it is not good for our 
country. We need to lift the budget caps. We need to spend the money 
that we need to spend on national security.
  I will also say that there are other pieces of national security, 
because the budget caps remain in place for the Department of Homeland 
Security. They remain in place for the Department of Justice. They 
remain in place for the Department of the Treasury, three

[[Page H6770]]

agencies that play a critical role in national security for this 
country, in tracking the money of terrorists, in protecting the 
homeland, in making sure that we can try and convict terrorists when we 
catch them.
  So it is not good for the country to maintain those budget caps, and 
that is what this bill does. It also relies on money that simply isn't 
going to be there by having this imaginary OCO funding.
  The second way I think this bill is not good for the troops and not 
good for the country is something that the chairman alluded to, and 
that is there are restrictions on what the Pentagon can do by way of 
saving money.
  The chairman mentioned the A-10, but there are a whole host of other 
things the Pentagon has proposed as a way to save money and spend it 
more efficiently, which, over the course of the last 2 or 3 years, we 
have blocked almost every attempt, not every attempt.
  On personnel savings, we have made changes in the retirement system. 
We have made changes in the healthcare system. We saved no money for 10 
years. For 10 years we saved no money in personnel costs while the 
Pentagon tells us that, to be able to properly train our troops to get 
them ready to go to battle, they need personnel cost savings.
  If we don't give them that savings, last year, next year, this year, 
in the future, they will not have the money for readiness that they 
need to train and equip our troops. So that is not good for the 
country.
  There are a number of other provision areas--well, BRAC would be a 
big one. We have seen our Army and Marine Corps shrink substantially. 
We have seen our entire military shrink substantially. We haven't 
closed any bases. That is not good for the country, to not find savings 
there so that we can spend it on training our troops.

                              {time}  1200

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Over the course of the last 2 or 3 years, we have wound up 
authorizing and appropriating here in Congress substantially less money 
for readiness than the President, now, not this year, assuming you 
imagine that this OCO money is actually going to appear.
  The bulk of the OCO money makes up for the readiness gap. But, again, 
that OCO money isn't going to be there. So I don't think this bill is 
good for our country or good for our troops.
  I do agree with the chairman that that is the criteria on which it 
should be judged. But I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the chair of the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Projection Forces.
  Mr. FORBES. I thank the chairman for his hard work on this bill and 
bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, as we listen today, one of the things that you really 
won't hear outside of this room is anybody challenging the substance of 
this bill. In fact, the opponents of this bill time and time again say 
what a really good bill it is.
  You won't hear anyone challenging the partisanship of this bill 
because they will praise Chairman Thornberry for the bipartisan product 
he has brought to the floor.
  You won't hear them saying it is not the right amount of money in 
here, that it is too much or too little, because it is almost exactly 
the dollar amount that the President requested.
  And you won't hear them say that they took this money from another 
priority because they agree this is the amount of money that should be 
spent on national defense.
  The sole reason this bill is being opposed today and the sole reason 
the President is going to veto it is because he wants to use national 
defense as a bartering chip to get everything he wants for the IRS, the 
EPA, and all of the other political agendas that he has.
  Can you imagine, as Chairman Thornberry mentioned, how strong he 
looks around the globe when he says America is going to be strong, yet 
he vetoes the bill that authorizes the national defense of this country 
and gives him almost everything he wants.
  The President and the opponents of this bill also need to realize 
that, if they defeat this bill, they will also defeat the construction 
of three destroyers, two attack subs, three small surface combatants, 
an amphibious ship, and they will delay the Air Force bomber and tanker 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time we stop using national defense as some kind 
of political poker chip that can be gambled away. It is time we pass 
this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, I very specifically challenge the substance of this 
bill. The OCO funding and the way it is funding is not good for 
national security and not good for our troops. The substance of the 
bill is precisely the issue and what it does for defense or does not do 
for defense. That is why using the OCO funding is the exact wrong way 
to go.
  The other thing I will say is I am quite confident that we will get a 
bill. Because that is the interesting thing about this argument.
  As I have pointed out, the appropriators in the Senate have already 
rejected the OCO funding. So this $38 billion that we have in here is 
gone, done, poof, not going to happen. All right?
  We are going to have to have a further debate about that in the 
Appropriations Committee to actually fund any of the stuff that we are 
talking about in this bill. I am confident that we will have that 
debate. I wish I could be more confident that it will come out in a 
positive way.
  We need to lift the budget caps. We actually need to pass 
appropriations bills and not shut the government down. We will see what 
happens on December 11.
  But when that happens, we can pass this bill. We are not going to not 
pass the NDAA. We just need to pass it the right way so it actually 
helps our country and actually funds the programs that we are talking 
about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Washington really makes the 
case when he talks about appropriations, OCO will not happen that way.
  This is not an appropriations bill. He is exactly right. There is 
more to do to figure all of that out. But that is not a reason to vote 
against this bill. This bill can't fix what he is complaining about. 
But it does do something. My point is why not do what it can.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Wilson), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to support the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and also thank Chairman Mac 
Thornberry for his leadership and hard work in bringing this important 
bill and conference report to the floor with bipartisan support.
  I appreciate serving as the chairman of the Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee to oversee some of the most important aspects 
of the Department of Defense. The subcommittee's portion of the bill 
represents a comprehensive and bipartisan product. For this reason, it 
is sad that some of our Democratic colleagues may vote against this 
bill and, worse, that the President is threatening a veto.
  Mr. Speaker, a veto or a vote against this bipartisan bill is a vote 
against security for American families and a vote against every member 
of the armed services and its military families.
  It would be a vote against authorizations that would strengthen our 
cyber defense capabilities. It would be a vote against counterterrorism 
programs and resources for our special operations forces currently 
fighting overseas. It would be a vote against reform efforts and 
programs that would ensure America maintains superiority in all areas 
of science and technology.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to support this 
bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act and for the President to 
sign this important piece of legislation that will soon cross his desk.
  A vote or veto against this measure is, simply put, a vote 
endangering American families and a vote against the American-dedicated 
servicemembers who mean so much to our country.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself 1 minute just to make two 
quick points.

[[Page H6771]]

  Mr. Speaker, first of all, we will have a motion to recommit that 
takes the money out of OCO and puts it into the base budget. So this is 
a problem that our bill could fix.
  We didn't have to buy into the OCO dodge and put money in there that 
we knew wasn't going to exist. Our motion to recommit will make that 
obvious. We will simply take it out of OCO. We will put it in the 
base budget so that you can do long-term planning with it and so that 
we actually get out from under the budget caps.

  The second point that I will make is that the previous speaker said 
that voting against the Defense bill was all of those bad things. Well, 
people have voted against the Defense bill.
  In 2009 and 2010, all but seven or eight Members of the Republican 
Party voted against the Defense bill. They voted against the defense 
bill because they didn't like Don't Ask, Don't Tell in one instance and 
because they didn't like adding LGBT people to hate crimes in the other 
instance.
  So they all were perfectly willing to vote against the troops and do 
all of the awful things that the previous speaker said for social 
policy reasons that had nothing to do with defense.
  So voting against the defense bill does not mean that you don't 
support the troops, and that is proof because most of the people who 
are now saying that it does have voted against the bill in the past.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is my 35th year in the Congress of the United 
States. I don't know that I voted against, prior to this year, either a 
Defense Appropriation bill or a Defense Authorization bill.
  I will vote against this bill. I regret that I will vote against this 
bill because I regret that we have not gotten ourselves on a fiscally 
sound path in a bipartisan way that makes this country more secure not 
only on the national defense side, but secure on the domestic side as 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report, which I 
believe does a disservice to our men and women in uniform and 
undermines our national security.
  I do not believe this is the chairman's fault. I want to make that 
very clear. The chairman has been dealt a hand, and he is trying to 
play the best hand he can. I understand that.
  I agree fully, however, with the ranking member, with his concerns 
and opposition to this bill not because of most of its substance, but 
because of the adverse impact it has on so much else.
  This continues the Republican sequester sneak-around strategy. What 
do I mean by that? My Republican colleagues historically--since I have 
been here--talk about spending money. What they don't like to do is pay 
for things. That is, of course, what we do with taxes.
  It is not for free: national security, education, health care, law 
enforcement. You have to pay for it. And if you want to put a level of 
doing something, you need to pay for that or you pass it along to the 
next generation.
  This bill continues the sequester sneak-around strategy of blowing 
through their own defense spending cap by misusing emergency overseas 
contingency operations funding for nonemergency base defense spending. 
That is why the Pentagon is opposed to this. That is why the Joint 
Chiefs believe this is bad policy fiscal policy for the military.
  As our military planners and Secretary Carter have made clear, such 
an approach to funding undermines the Pentagon's long-term planning 
process, which is based on multi-year budgets and predictable funding 
streams.
  Unfortunately, the fiscal policies of the leadership of this House 
over the last 6 years have been anything but predictable.
  We avoided a shutdown of government yesterday, notwithstanding the 
fact that 151 of my Republican colleagues voted not to fund government 
today. Only Democrats ensured the fact that we kept the government 
open. Ninety-one Republicans voted with us, but that was far less than 
half of their caucus.
  This proposal undermines the chances for a bipartisan budget 
agreement to replace the sequester before the CR we passed yesterday 
expires on December 11. Mr. Speaker, 151 Republicans voted even against 
keeping government open for a short period of time, approximately 2 
months.
  This approach included in this bill also harms fundamental national 
security priorities by characterizing core defense items as part of 
contingency operations. That is not true. It is not fiscally helpful.
  This includes the Iron Dome missile defense program and all other 
U.S.-Israel joint missile defense programs that help Israel protect 
civilians from Hamas and Hezbollah rockets.
  Additionally, this report continues to prevent the administration 
from closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, which remains a 
recruiting tool for terrorists and undermines America's role as a 
beacon of constitutional rights and freedoms around the world. 
Meanwhile, we are spending $2.4 million per detainee every year for 
those we hold in Guantanamo.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. HOYER. The ranking member of the Armed Services Committee opposes 
this bill strongly, as do members of that committee. The President has 
made it clear he is going to veto this bill not because he is against 
national security.
  Ironically, Republicans have come to the number that the President 
proposed. There is a difference. The President paid for his number. He 
didn't pass it along to our children.
  We must recognize this conference report for what it is: a vehicle 
for partisan messaging and an instrument for breaking with the Murray-
Ryan principle of parity in defense and nondefense sequester relief. It 
is not a bill that makes America safer and a stronger force for justice 
around the world. Therefore, I will oppose it.
  I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) once 
again for his work in trying to improve this bill in committee, on this 
floor and in conference, and for his untiring work in support of the 
men and women of our Nation's armed services.
  I thank the chairman of the committee for the same thing. He was 
dealt a bad hand. I understand the hand he has to play. It is not good 
for our country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just make three brief points.
  Number one, as this debate goes on, it is increasingly clear that the 
real debate is about budget and appropriations, not about this bill.
  Secondly, I am one of those who voted to continue to fund the 
government because I think it is essential that we pay our troops and 
that there be no lapse in that. Unfortunately, we have today the White 
House playing politics with national security, and I think that is what 
makes an ultimate agreement harder.

                              {time}  1215

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the President was short in funding Israeli 
missile defense. We fully fund Israeli missile defense in this bill, 
and it should be supported.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Turner), the distinguished chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1735, what would 
be the 54th consecutive National Defense Authorization Act.
  What we have here today is, unfortunately, partisan politics at its 
worst. You have people who are coming down to the House floor 
condemning a bill that they voted for, and now they are going to vote 
against it because the President has decided that he is going to veto 
it. He is not going to veto it because of what is in this bill. He is 
going to veto it because there is not enough spending on the 
bureaucracies of the IRS and the EPA. We know this because not only has 
the President said it, even Defense Secretary Ash Carter has said it in 
front of the Armed Services Committee.
  Now, if this were such a bad bill, you would think that it would not 
have come out of our committee with full, almost unanimous, support by 
both sides of the aisle, bipartisan, unbelievable support for this bill 
in virtually

[[Page H6772]]

its same structure that is coming to this floor. Only when President 
Obama stepped forward and said, I am going to veto it because you are 
not funding the IRS and the EPA, did it suddenly lose its bipartisan 
support.
  This is not an issue about Republicans and Democrats. This is an 
issue about this administration. This administration, the author of 
sequestration, President Obama, set forth a plan that has been 
dismantling our military and needs to be set aside. Now, what we have 
in this bill is a bill that fully funds national defense, even as 
Minority Leader Steny Hoyer said, that fully funds it at the level that 
is requested by the President.
  Now, you can say there are gimmicks, you can say there are tricks, 
but you can also say what is important; and as you go to the experts to 
determine whether or not this bill works, Chairman Dempsey of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff stood in front of our committee, and when asked the 
question of does the structure of this bill fully fund national 
defense, he said, absolutely, that he could spend it and that it would 
be the number that is necessary. He also said it was the lower jagged 
edge of what is necessary for national security.
  Mr. Speaker, if Chairman Dempsey says in front of our committee--and 
he certainly is the expert--that this works, it works. I urge everyone 
to support this bill. Set aside sequestration, set aside partisan 
politics, and support our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chair of the 
Strategic Forces Subcommittee, for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your 
leadership in getting us here today. I would like to ask the chairman a 
question if I might.
  Does the legislation provide the President the exact amount of money 
he requested in his budget request?
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. The gentleman is correct. The total is exactly the 
amount that the President asked for.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Thank you. That is what I thought.
  Does the chairman recall who it was that testified that the amount 
requested for fiscal year 2016 for the national defense is ``at the 
ragged edge of manageable risk?''
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. As the gentleman from Ohio just said, it was the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that said that this is the lower ragged 
edge of what it takes to defend the country.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. And that individual is the President's senior 
military adviser, isn't he?
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Yes, sir.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. That is what I thought.
  Thank you, Chairman.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have an easy choice here today: we can vote for a 
conference report that sends a bill to the President that provides him 
authorized funding at exactly the level he requested, or we can send 
the Nation below the ``ragged edge of manageable risk'' in its 
security.
  It is a bill that provides over a $320 million increase for our 
Israeli allies on top of the $155 million in the President's request 
for missile defense cooperation.
  I would ask Members, especially those who supported the President's 
Iran deal, to recall it is exactly this funding that the administration 
said was vital to Israel's security because of that deal and its 
termination of multilateral sanctions on ballistic missile 
proliferation.
  This is a bill that provides $184 million to fund an American rocket 
to end our reliance on Russian-made rocket engines. This is a bill that 
provides the President's request of $358 million for Cooperative Threat 
Reduction activities.
  What does that mean? That is how we fight Ebola.
  Mr. Speaker, my fellow Members, there are some tough votes that we 
have to take around here from time to time. This is not one of them. 
Vladimir Putin is bombing U.S.-backed anti-Assad forces in Syria. If 
you want to make Putin happy, vote against this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, the reason that we are at the ragged edge 
of what defense needs is because of the budget caps. That is the issue. 
That is the substantive issue and why this is important.
  Tied into that is a regrettable fact. The chairman says repeatedly, 
look, this is the authorizing bill. Don't talk to me about the budget. 
Don't talk to me about appropriations. The defense budget is over half 
of the discretionary budget. So, unfortunately, the defense bill is 
about the budget and about the appropriations process.
  As long as we have those budget caps locked in place, we will be at 
the ragged edge of what we can do to protect our national security. We 
shouldn't be there. We should lift the budget caps. This NDAA locks in 
those budget caps and uses the OCO dodge, which, as I have pointed out, 
the Senate isn't agreeing to, so the $38 billion isn't going to be 
there.
  Even worse, what Secretary Carter has also said is that the OCO 
funding simply perpetuates the 5 years of budget cuts and uncertainty, 
of CRs, of government shutdowns, of threatened government shutdowns, 
and of not being able to plan. Secretary Carter has been very clear. He 
opposes this bill because the OCO funding is not an adequate way to 
fund defense because it is 1-year money. It is a budget gimmick. It 
doesn't give them the ability to plan and do what they need to protect 
our country and take care of our troops.
  So opposing this bill because of the OCO funding is enormously 
important to our troops and is a substantive part of this. We cannot 
simply dodge the budget issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond briefly to the comment about the 
committee vote. We in committee said we didn't like the OCO funding and 
that we needed that to be fixed. But we are coming out of committee. We 
are going to give it a chance to work its way through the process. No 
changes were made, so we opposed it on the floor.
  We didn't just wake up yesterday and oppose this. Democrats voted 
against this bill when it came through the House in the first place. 
The critically important issue that we absolutely made a point of in 
committee was not fixed, so that is why we are opposing this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the distinguished chair of the 
Subcommittee on Readiness.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask Congress to vote in 
favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY16. I am proud 
that this conference report takes significant steps towards rebuilding 
our military and readiness.
  We prioritize training for our troops and maintenance and 
modernization of our equipment and technology. This NDAA is critical to 
carry out the military missions of this Nation effectively and 
successfully in an increasingly dangerous world.
  Recently, former Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger proclaimed: 
``The United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of 
crises since the end of the Second World War.'' This statement holds 
true today as we combat ISIS in the Middle East, as Russia again tests 
our commitment to global leadership, and as China continues to increase 
its defense spending to record levels.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional duty of providing for the 
common defense of our Nation. If Congress and the President fail to act 
on the NDAA, we forgo our constitutional duty, and we weaken the 
security of our Nation and ability to confront crises that occur around 
the globe.
  It is also important to point out that this is not the time to play 
political games with our national security or to hold hostage funding 
and authorization for the military for political gain. Our

[[Page H6773]]

Nation and our men and women in the military deserve better, and they 
deserve the proper support that Congress is under obligation to 
provide.
  As we have heard through testimony from our military leaders before 
the committee, our military is approaching the ragged edge of being 
able to execute our Nation's defense strategy. By not passing this 
NDAA, or by allowing sequestration to continue to devastate our 
Nation's military readiness, we place ourselves in a position where we 
will be unable to defend against the threats we face today and in the 
future.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and vote in favor of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of FY16.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the gentleman just said about 
how critical national security is, yet the Republican majority insists 
on maintaining those budget caps that are devastating to our national 
security. They will not lift the caps that are causing precisely the 
problems that were just described, and 151 of them voted yesterday to 
defund the entire military by shutting down the government. So if we 
really believe in all of those national security priorities, let's 
start funding them. Lift the budget caps and actually pay for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself 
with the ranking member because I think that we all work very, very 
hard on this committee, and I appreciate the work that our chairman has 
done as well. I have to say I am speaking largely as someone who has 
never not supported an NDAA. I actually did support it in committee, 
and I support it on the floor. But I think we are in a box, and 
sometimes when you get in a box, you have got to do something about it. 
You can't just stay in there and sit. It means making some hard 
decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened in the committee when Secretary Carter 
was there. I have to say I think he was a bit badgered in that 
discussion, but at the same time, he is a big boy and he can handle 
that. Basically what he said is of course we support all those issues, 
of course we want a better budget for the men and women who serve our 
country because it is in the best interests of the United States of 
America, but we also have to be concerned about the future, not just 
about tomorrow. We have got to be able to do this for the men and women 
and for our country as we move forward.
  That is what this doesn't do. We have got to give this a chance. 
There has got to be a better chance. That is why I feel that I have 
been there. I have compromised; and there are a lot of members on that 
committee, honestly, who are not willing to compromise. We have tried 
to find that balance.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really proud of the work that we have done on the 
Military Personnel Subcommittee. I am proud because we made some gains. 
We have sort of shuffled some issues a little bit to be able to say to 
our leaders that we understand their concerns, we understand what 
readiness means in this country, and we have got to deal with that. 
Maybe we can't deal with all these issues that we have tried to make 
sure we funded to the very, very highest limit that we could possibly 
do.
  We know there are some changes perhaps that are coming, and so we do 
it in an incremental way, in a slow way, and something that we think is 
in the best interests of the men and women and the country all at the 
same time. We have got to do that. We have multiple global crises going 
on in this country. So we can't just make a decision for today; it has 
got to be down the line.
  What is it that we need to do?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. What is important? What was Secretary 
Carter talking about? Predictability. Not just for our folks at the 
Pentagon to be able to make sure the men and women of this country are 
provided with everything that they need, but we also need to be sure 
that those who work with our country--we have a very strong contractual 
relationship with the public-private sector in this country, and we 
need to provide prediction for them as well. That is why I stand today. 
I believe it is in the best interests to go back and work this out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I work in a community of large numbers of 
military families. And guess what, the military is no different from 
the rest of our country. It is made safer and stronger by Homeland 
Security, by law enforcement, by environmental protection, and by 
strong education programs. They care about all those things, so they 
want us to stand up for their children and for their future.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do this together. Let's take that chance. It is 
worth it.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the distinguished chair of 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the lady that we need to make hard choices, 
but we don't need to do this in this bill. We can't solve the problems 
that have been reiterated in this bill. This is a budget issue.
  I serve on the Budget Committee as well, and I believe we need to 
undo sequestration for our national defense. We need to come up with a 
comprehensive plan to address the cost drivers of our country that are 
causing us to go into debt.

                              {time}  1230

  We need to get our priorities back as a country and make sure we 
provide for the common defense. We need to do that in the budget in a 
comprehensive way.
  But we don't need to hold our military hostage today by not approving 
the expenditure of funds for the vital things that they need. That is 
what my colleagues are doing. I appreciate their intent. I look forward 
to working with them--many of us do--to solve this overall problem, but 
today our military need to know that we are standing behind them and 
that we are going to authorize them with the things that they need.
  This bill is full of the things that our country and our men and 
women in uniform need. As the chairman of the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee, we are doing an investigation dealing with 
the transfer of detainees out of GTMO and what happened with Sergeant 
Bergdahl and the Taliban Five. So I was especially proud of the part in 
here that makes sure that the detainees are not removed from Guantanamo 
Bay and brought into our local communities. In addition, we set up an 
additional protocol so that the Secretary of Defense has to certify 
that any detainees that go to a foreign country, that that country is 
able to detain them, keep them safe, and make sure that they don't go 
back into the fight and continue their terrorist activities.
  This bill takes care of our troops. It addresses the threats facing 
us. We have so many. Whether it is what is going on in Ukraine and with 
Russia, whether it is dealing with ISIL, or whether it is a cyber 
threat that we have, every day there are threats coming around us, and 
we address them in this bill. That is why we need to pass it. It also 
provides for the platforms that we need.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, to stand with our troops, 
to provide them with what they need, and to support this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), the distinguished chair of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
  Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  As chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel, I appreciate Chairman Thornberry's efforts to bring this 
conference report to the floor. His dedication to our Armed Forces, 
their families, and our veterans is commendable.

[[Page H6774]]

  Supporting the men and women who volunteer to pick up a weapon, stand 
a post, and guard the freedoms and liberties that make our Nation great 
is a primary function of the Federal Government. Article I, section 8 
of the Constitution, ``to raise and support Armies,'' ``to provide and 
maintain a Navy,'' today with adoption of this conference report, we 
achieve that goal.
  Included in the report are personnel provisions that will allow us to 
recruit and retain the best and brightest, maintain an agile military 
force, and ensure our brave men and women in uniform are given the 
benefits they have earned and deserve.
  The President has threatened to veto this conference report, even 
though the report authorizes the amount he requested in his own budget, 
because he is not happy with the manner in which it is provided. He is 
using our military men and women as political pawns to get increases in 
nondefense spending. I understand that he has urged some of my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' today, and I want to make sure my colleagues 
know some of the things they would be voting against:
  A new retirement plan that provides options and portable retirement 
benefits for individuals who serve less than 20 years, roughly 83 
percent of the force;
  A pay raise for our military men and women, along with many special 
pays and bonuses, that are critical to maintaining the all-volunteer 
force;
  A joint uniform drug formulary between the Department of Defense and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs so that transitioning servicemembers 
get to stay on the drugs that are working for them as they leave active 
service; and
  Enhanced protections for sexual assault victims to include expanding 
access to Special Victims' Counsel, protecting victims from 
retaliation, and improving the military rules of evidence.
  If the President follows through with his veto threat, servicemembers 
and their families will be deprived of these significant improvements 
to their compensation and quality of life.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with our military men and women and 
their families and support this report.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 10 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  There was a comment earlier about the military being held hostage by 
these other needs, and I think it is really important to understand 
that, over the course of the last 5 years, what the military has really 
been held hostage to is the budget caps, one government shutdown, 
multiple CRs, and multiple threatened government shutdowns. That is 
what is holding the military hostage.
  If you talk to them about how they have tried to figure out what they 
can spend money on and what they can't spend money on throughout that 
madness--because we can't pass along a long-term budget, because we 
can't lift the budget caps, because we can't pass appropriations--that 
is what is holding them hostage.
  A 1- or 2-month delay in passing the NDAA--which, by the way, we have 
passed in December for the last 3 or 4 years--isn't going to hold them 
hostage at all. What is holding them hostage is that ridiculous budget 
process that I just mentioned.
  And why do we have that ridiculous budget process? Because the 
Republican majority insists on maintaining those budget caps. It is 
those budget caps that are holding our military hostage. Unless we lift 
them, we will not be able to adequately fund defense.
  I heard a number of times over here that the only reason we oppose 
this is because we want more spending on other programs. That is not 
even close to true, and it is obvious that no one has been listening to 
the arguments that I have been making.
  The reason we propose this is because it perpetuates our military 
being held hostage to budget caps, budget gimmicks, CRs, and threatened 
government shutdowns. This bill has OCO funding in it. It does not have 
base budget funding. It does not provide the same amount of money for 
the President that the President's budget provides because it is not 
the same money, and the type of money does matter. If you have actual 
budget authority, if you have actual appropriations, you can spend them 
over multiple years because you know that they are going to be there.
  It is absurd the way we have budgeted for the last 5 years, and what 
we are doing in opposing this bill is standing up to that absurdity for 
many reasons, I will grant you. Number one is to protect our national 
security and the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces who have 
had to live with that government shutdown, those CRs, those threatened 
government shutdowns, and, most importantly, those budget caps that the 
majority refuses to lift. Unless we lift those, the military is going 
to be in this situation in perpetuity, and that is unacceptable for our 
national security.

  It is all about national security. It is all about defense for why we 
are opposing this bill. We can't go on like this and have an adequate 
national security. We have to lift the budget caps.
  I will say one other thing. We have to raise taxes somewhere. In the 
last 14 years, we have cut taxes by somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 
trillion. Now, granted, there are unquestionably places in the budget 
we can cut, and we cut.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.
  We have cut Medicare. I know we have cut Medicare because the 
Republican Party ran all kinds of ads bashing us for cutting Medicare 
back in 2010. We found about $700 billion in savings that has extended 
the life of the program and saved money, so we have saved money.
  But the flat refusal to raise any revenue is what has got our 
military with a hand around its throat, because, believe it or not, you 
have to actually raise the money if you are going to spend it.
  So as you stand up here complaining about all the things that we are 
not funding in national security and then insist on maintaining the 
budget caps and insist on not raising a penny in taxes, that is the 
grossest hypocrisy I can imagine. If you are unhappy with how much 
money is being spent on the military, then have the guts to raise the 
caps and raise the taxes to actually pay for it, or just stop talking 
about it and accept it at that level.
  We are opposing this bill because the budget process that we have 
been under is what is throttling our military. Until we break that 
grip, until we get an actual appropriations process, until we get the 
budget caps lifted, and until, I believe, we actually raise some 
revenues to pay for it, we are not going to be doing adequate service 
to the men and women of our military.
  I also want to say that I oppose this bill because it also continues 
to keep Guantanamo Bay open at the cost of nearly $3 million per 
inmate. In addition to being an international problem, it is 
unbelievably expensive and not necessary. We should shut Guantanamo. 
This bill locks in place for another year that it will stay open and 
does not give the President any option or any flexibility in that 
regard.
  So, again, don't tell me or anyone over here that we are voting 
``no'' for reasons that have nothing to do with national security. How 
can you possibly look at the last 5 years of budgeting and the impact 
that it has had on the Department of Defense and say that getting rid 
of the budget caps isn't absolutely critical to national security? I 
believe that it is, and that is why we oppose this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of points. Number one is I 
share a lot of the concerns about the effect of sequestration on the 
military, but as this conversation continues, it is clearer and clearer 
that the real problem here is budgets, and now we hear taxes.
  This bill cannot solve either of those problems. We cannot rewrite 
the Tax Code or raise taxes. We can't repeal ObamaCare. There are lots 
of things we can't do. But we can do some things, and we should do 
that.
  Secondly, a dollar of OCO is a dollar spent just as much as a dollar 
of base

[[Page H6775]]

is spent, and that is why I say I don't really think if you are on the 
ground in Afghanistan you care about what the label put on the money 
is. And, by the way, the increase in the OCO account is operations and 
maintenance money, which is only good for 1 year anyway.
  Next point. In fiscal year 2013, Israel missile defense was funded in 
OCO, and yet we had Members on that side of the aisle, including some 
who are complaining about that, vote for it. That is what we do 
sometimes.
  Finally, this President signed into law the exact provisions on 
restricting GTMO transfers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, this President signed 
into law the exact restrictions on Guantanamo transfers that we have in 
this bill. Now, is it all of a sudden such a big deal that he has 
decided that he is going to veto the bill over it? I think that is a 
hard case to make.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the distinguished chair of the House 
Small Business Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the passage of an annual National Defense Authorization 
Act to lay out our Nation's defense and national security priorities is 
one of our most important duties as Members of Congress.
  This year is no different, especially given the very serious 
conflicts happening around the globe--in Eastern Europe, in the Middle 
East, in the South China Sea--which have serious implications for our 
own security and for our allies.
  This year's NDAA makes a number of positive changes to DOD small 
business contracting policies to help ensure that small businesses 
throughout the country can continue to perform the critical support 
functions that help make America's military still the best in the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, having a small business industrial base means taxpayers 
benefit from increased competition, innovation, and job creation. Since 
2013, we have lost over 25 percent of the small firms registered to do 
business with the government--25 percent. That is over 100,000 small 
businesses. The reforms in this year's NDAA, the bill that we are 
considering now, takes steps to reverse that trend.
  The White House has threatened to veto this bill. That is a shame 
because this bipartisan, bicameral bill defends small businesses and 
ensures that the spirit of entrepreneurship is alive and well in our 
industrial base. This isn't about political gamesmanship--at least it 
shouldn't be. This is about two of the most bipartisan issues in the 
political arena: the men and women in uniform and the small businesses 
that employ half of our American workforce.
  I sincerely hope that the President reconsiders and enacts this 
bipartisan, bicameral bill.
  I want to thank a number of members of my committee who have 
contributed to this year's bill, including Mr. Hardy of Nevada, Mr. 
Knight of California, Mr. Bost of Illinois, Mr. Curbelo of Florida, 
Mrs. Radewagen of American Samoa, and Mr. Hanna of New York. I would 
also like to thank a number of other Members and thank Mr. Thornberry.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, our military must always be available and 
able to ready, aim, fire at a moment's notice. The threats we face 
around the world today demand it; and as soldier and a veteran, I can 
tell you that ``ready'' in the military needs to be spoken as a 
command, not proposed as a question.
  There is one crucial element: our military has to be ready to engage 
the threats. This bill ensures our military readiness, and it ensures 
that there is a plan for 2016.
  From ISIS to Russia to North Korea, the threats we face are too 
serious to wait any longer. But in the same week that the President was 
surprised by the Russians bombing U.S.-backed forces in Syria, he is 
threatening to veto this National Defense bill.
  Veto our national security, really?
  I encourage the President to use his phone, and to paraphrase his own 
words, to call the 1980s and ask for their foreign policy back because 
we need it. That policy demands that our military must be backed by the 
full confidence of this government now. This can't wait.
  Pass this pay raise for our troops. Pass this to give our troops new 
retirement benefits. Pass this to keep our critical weapons systems at 
an operational level.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been working on this legislation since the 
beginning of this year. It is a good bill that adheres to the law, and 
it is the certainty our troops need.
  Pass this bill. Our troops need it. They don't let you down. Don't 
let them down.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Stefanik), the distinguished vice chair of the 
Subcommittee on Readiness.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 1735, the fiscal year 2016 NDAA. I thank Chairman 
Thornberry for his leadership, guidance, and tireless efforts on this 
imperative piece of legislation.
  Just this past week, the major headline coming out of Afghanistan was 
the Taliban's seizure of the prominent town of Kunduz. This serves as 
yet another reminder to us all that this region of the world remains 
unstable and brings about challenges to our national security. The 
fiscal year 2016 NDAA provides our Nation's Armed Forces with the 
resources they need to defend our national security.
  Since September 11, the Army's 10th Mountain Division out of Fort 
Drum, which I am honored to represent, has been the most actively 
forward deployed division to Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet sadly, just this 
past month, Specialist Kyle Gilbert, a soldier from the 10th Mountain 
Division, died in Afghanistan while serving our Nation.
  In New York's North Country, our community and our military families 
understand what fighting for our Nation's liberties and freedoms truly 
means.
  So when I express my support for the NDAA, the tools it provides and 
how it enables our Armed Forces to defend our Nation from organizations 
who create volatility and terrorism around the world, I am speaking for 
my constituents, those servicemen and -women who are overseas right now 
in highly kinetic combat zones fighting to protect you and me, our 
families, and our Nation.
  Colleagues, the fiscal year 2016 NDAA allows for our Armed Forces to 
plan and operate according to what we as a nation have asked of them. 
We must support the NDAA to maintain our readiness and provide for our 
military.
  As leaders here today, we know we cannot continue to task our troops 
with doing more with less as defense sequestration cuts remain. The 
conference report to FY 2016 NDAA provides relief from these harmful 
defense sequestration cuts, but more must be done.
  Let me remind my colleagues across the aisle sequestration was 
proposed by this administration, signed into law by this President, and 
passed by a previous Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from New York.
  Ms. STEFANIK. When the NDAA comes before the President's desk, I hope 
he realizes a veto threat could threaten the safety of our Nation's 
servicemembers and our country's defense.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and voting for the 
NDAA.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I will go ahead and start with that last comment because it is a 
popular trope that is trotted out all the time about how sequestration 
was the President's idea and, therefore, it is not our fault, which is 
a fascinating argument because I was actually here when that

[[Page H6776]]

happened, and I don't think it is clear exactly whose idea 
sequestration was.
  What is clear is that the reason that we did the Budget Control Act 
and sequestration was because the Republican majority in the House was 
refusing to raise the debt ceiling, refusing to allow us to borrow 
money at a time when we had to borrow it. How do we think that would 
have impacted national security and our troops?
  I voted against the Budget Control Act, but I have often said I don't 
hold anything against those who voted for it because they basically had 
a gun to their head. The Budget Control Act was an awful piece of 
legislation, but not raising the debt ceiling, not paying our debts, 
you know, stopping the ability of the United States of America to 
borrow money, was clearly worse.
  So this partisan argument that, oh, you know, sequestration was the 
President's idea so therefore it is not our fault is about as absurd an 
argument as I have ever heard. Number one, because like I said, the 
only reason that that discussion was on the table was because it was 
blackmail for raising the debt ceiling, which had to be raised.
  Number two, it has been a good 5 years since then. The Republicans 
now control both the House and the Senate, and they had an opportunity 
to pass a budget resolution this year. They passed a budget resolution 
that held those caps and sequestration firmly in place, and that is not 
good for our troops and it is not good for our national security.
  So let's move on to that appropriations process; get those budget 
caps lifted for the sake of a whole lot of different issues. That 
brings me back to the National Defense Authorization Act and the fact 
that, by locking in the OCO, by accepting those budget caps, by using 
OCO funds, we are once again putting the Pentagon in a situation where 
they don't know how much money they are going to have and they have no 
predictability whatsoever.
  It is the OCO in this bill that is the reason that I oppose it and 
the reason that most Democrats oppose it because that OCO is harmful to 
national security. We need a real budget. We need real budget authority 
and real appropriations. Voting for a bill that puts in place the OCO 
instead of that simply perpetuates the nightmare of the last 5 years of 
uncertainty. Like I said, we are going to have a motion to recommit 
here in a moment that easily fixes this problem.
  I agree with 95 percent of the rest of the bill. I don't agree with 
all of it. The chairman said, you know, we negotiated some things; they 
were up, they were down. By and large, it is a good bill. But the 5 
percent that is bad is so bad that it does justify a ``no'' vote 
because it perpetuates this bad budget situation and is a very easy 
fix.
  Take the OCO out of it and put it in the base budget. It is very 
simple. That is what we are going to propose in the motion to recommit. 
You will see Democrats vote for that because we support funding this. 
What we don't support is maintaining the budget caps through an obvious 
budget gimmick.
  I had a fascinating conversation with a member of the Rules Committee 
yesterday on the other side of the aisle who said he was very, very 
proud of the Budget Control Act, said it was the best vote he had taken 
in Congress. Interesting that it was supposedly all the President's 
fault. But he really supported the Budget Control Act. He felt those 
caps were absolutely necessary. And I said: Well, then you must oppose 
the NDAA because it busts those caps by $38 billion. He said a lot of 
things at that point, but he never answered my question.
  So this dodge of saying that we are going to create sort of money 
that really isn't money in order to, for one brief period of time, fund 
isolated programs within the Pentagon does not help national security. 
The only thing that is going to help national security is by getting 
rid of the OCO dodge and budgeting honestly. So that is why we oppose 
this bill.
  Yes, I believe that budget caps should be raised for the other bills 
as well, in part, because I think a lot of those Departments are 
important to national security, as I mentioned: the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of the 
Treasury.
  More than anything, we oppose this bill because of how bad it is for 
the Pentagon. That is the reason the Secretary of Defense opposed it. 
That is the reason all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose it. They 
want an actual budget. They want actual, dependable money, the way 
things used to be before 2010 when we would actually pass 
appropriations bills and they could plan more than a month or two at a 
time. If we pass this bill, we simply perpetuate that process.
  We will pass an NDAA. We will resolve one way or the other our 
appropriations difference, and we will get it done, but passing this 
bill now simply perpetuates a bad situation that is bad for our troops 
and bad for national security. For that reason, I oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start with one of the points I made at the 
beginning, and that is to thank the staff, especially on both sides of 
the aisle, who spent a lot of hours, disrupted a lot of plans, put in 
incredible effort back and forth to come up with this conference 
report. Members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the 
Capitol contributed to the product that we are about to vote on.
  Mr. Speaker, for 53 straight years Congresses of both parties have 
passed and Presidents of both parties have signed into law Defense 
Authorization bills.
  There were a handful of times--and it is exactly four--when a 
President vetoed a Defense Authorization bill, and every single time it 
was because of something that was in the bill. So it came back to 
Congress, there were adjustments made, it went back to the White House, 
and he signed it into law.
  Never before has a Defense Authorization bill been held hostage, not 
because of something that is in it, but trying to force Congress to 
take action on some other matter. Now, we have talked a lot today about 
appropriations, about budget, even about taxes. None of those things 
can happen with the Defense Authorization bill.
  The reason it has never happened before is because it would be 
irresponsible to hold defense hostage to another domestic agenda, a 
political agenda, even a broader budget agenda. And it unnecessarily 
threatens the national security of the United States. This is a first, 
and this first is happening at a particularly dangerous time.
  There is nothing in this bill that could solve the problem that we 
have heard so much about. It is an authorization bill. It is not 
appropriations. It is not budget. It is not a tax bill. It is a defense 
policy bill.
  We have heard from time to time the military opposes it. No. They 
say, ``I would rather do it differently,'' and I would, too. But I have 
specifically asked general after general, Would you rather have the 
money or not, and they always say they would rather have the money. 
Even though it is not an ideal way to do budgets, it is better to have 
the money than not.
  By the way, there is a provision in here so that if we can, as I hope 
we do, reach a budget agreement in a different appropriations matter, 
the authorizations are adjusted accordingly.
  The bottom line is, if Members vote against this bill, they are 
voting against everything in it. You may say you are for it, but you 
are voting against it.
  So what I think our troops deserve and what the world needs to hear, 
especially at this point in time, is that Washington can work. We may 
not solve all the problems today, but we can do something that is good 
and that we are willing to stand up and take action to help defend 
ourselves. That is what this bill is about.
  I hope Members will support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote against H.R. 1735, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 because it is a 
budget gimmick, shamelessly hiding behind the guise of national 
security. Make no mistake--America would be less safe were this bill to 
move forward in its present form.
  The President has already said--as he has been saying for months--
that he will veto this bill if it misuses Overseas Contingency 
Operation funds to evade the congressionally mandated budget caps. 
Sadly, but not surprisingly, Congressional Republicans did exactly that 
and worse. They had an opportunity to avoid leaving our troops in the 
lurch by pursuing a

[[Page H6777]]

balanced and fair budget deal that would unwind the reckless sequester 
for the national security activities at non-defense agencies like 
State, Homeland Security, and the VA.
  In addition, this Authorization contains a budget-busting time bomb, 
the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, which is such a naked attempt 
to rob sister accounts to pay for pet projects that, for the third year 
in a row, Congressional appropriators have refused to fund.
  The Sea-Based Deterrence Fund was created in the FY15 Defense 
Authorization because the Navy could not afford to simultaneously build 
back up to a 300-plus surface fleet and procure 12 Ohio-class 
replacement nuclear submarines. The Sea-Based Deterrence Fund didn't 
solve their problem of how SSBN(X) would be paid for. It simply shifted 
that burden onto the larger Pentagon budget. According to a recent 
Congressional Research Service report, the new ballistic missile 
submarine program is expected to cost $139 billion. Sadly, the account 
grew worse in conference by expanding its use to also include attack 
submarines and aircraft carriers. This account is emblematic of a 
larger problem, which is that this Defense Authorization marches our 
country towards a complete rebuild of our nuclear arsenal and triad, 
something that a Congressionally-appointed National Defense Panel 
estimated will cost up to $1 trillion.
  While I cannot support this bill, I want to acknowledge the 
leadership taken by the House and Senate Armed Services Committee 
Chairs and Ranking Members for tackling some tough issues in this 
Authorization that previous efforts have ignored. This bill includes 
bipartisan acquisition reform aimed at containing defense spending, 
difficult but necessary military retirement and benefit changes, and 
makes strides towards rightsizing the Pentagon workforce.
  Critically, it includes provisions that I championed to reform and 
extend the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SW) program for those brave 
Afghan men and women who risked their lives to aid our troops, but are 
now in danger as a result of their courageous service. We cannot allow 
more of our Afghan allies, and their families, to fall victim to the 
merciless Taliban. Should this Defense Authorization succumb to a 
protracted political fight, these provisions dealing with the Afghan 
SIV program should be broken off and moved through Congress as 
standalone legislation. I am prepared to introduce and push such a 
bill, as I've done in the past.
  Though some hard decisions were made in this Defense Authorization, 
that leadership is overshadowed by continued budget gimmickry on 
Overseas Contingency Funds, the Sea Based Deterrence Fund, and harmful 
policy riders such as the continued effort to prevent the 
administration from rightfully closing Guantanamo Bay.
  Both the House and Senate Ranking Members of the Armed Services 
Committees could not support this bill. Nor can I. The president will 
veto it. That's because our men and women in uniform should not be 
taken hostage in a budgetary circus. Just yesterday, 151 Republicans 
voted to shutdown the government, including our military. America 
cannot be great if it's subject to one manufactured crisis after 
another. We can get this right. All it would take is a little 
leadership and some common sense. Sadly, both are in short supply in 
this process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 449, the previous question is ordered.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Smith of Washington moves to recommit the conference 
     report on the bill H.R. 1735 to the committee of conference 
     with instructions to the managers on the part of the House 
     to--
       (1) agree to section 1501 of the Senate amendment in lieu 
     of section 1501, as passed by the House;
       (2) agree to section 1505 of the Senate amendment in lieu 
     of section 1504, as passed by the House;
       (3) disagree to section 4303 in the conference substitute 
     recommended by the committee of conference; and
       (4) insist that the conference substitute recommended by 
     the committee of conference be modified--
       (A) by transferring the funding table in section 4303 to 
     appear after the last line of section 4301 so as to be 
     included in the funding table in section 4301;
       (B) in section 1301(b), by striking ``section 1504'' and 
     inserting ``section 301'';
       (C) in section 1301(b), by striking ``section 4303'' and 
     inserting ``section 4301''; and
       (D) in section 1522(a), by striking paragraph (4).

  Mr. SMITH of Washington (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
  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.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on adoption of the conference report, if ordered; and 
passage of H.R. 3457.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186, 
nays 241, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 531]

                               YEAS--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan

[[Page H6778]]


     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Culberson
     Gutierrez
     Hudson
     Kelly (IL)
     Neal
     Perlmutter
     Reichert

                              {time}  1326

  Mr. JOLLY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mrs. CAROLYN 
B. MALONEY of New York, Messrs. ENGEL, SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New 
York, and RUSH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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 conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 270, 
nays 156, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 532]

                               YEAS--270

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Takai
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--156

     Adams
     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Labrador
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nolan
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Culberson
     Gutierrez
     Hudson
     Kelly (IL)
     Neal
     Perlmutter
     Reichert
     Sanchez, Loretta


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1333

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, while I voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 532, I 
intended to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1735, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

                          ____________________