[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 17, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2677-H2698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


               Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Thornberry

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rothfus). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 11 printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 9__. REFORM OF NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The National Security Council has increasingly 
     micromanaged military operations and centralized 
     decisionmaking within the staff of the National Security 
     Council. The size of the staff has contributed this problem.
       (2) As stated by former Secretary of Defense Robert M. 
     Gates, ``It was the operational micromanagement that drove me 
     nuts of White House and [National Security Council] staffers 
     calling senior commanders out in the field and asking them 
     questions, second guessing commanders'', and by another 
     former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, ``[B]ecause of that 
     centralization of that authority at the White House, there 
     are too few voices being heard in terms of the ability to 
     make decisions and that includes members of the cabinet.''.
       (3) Gates stated, ``You have 25 people working on a single 
     military problem... They are going to be doing things they 
     shouldn't be doing,'' and Panetta noted, ``The National 
     Security Council has grown enormously, which means you have a 
     lot more staff people running around at the White House on 
     these foreign policy issues.''.
       (4) Press reports indicate that National Security Council 
     micromanagement has included selecting targets in ongoing 
     military operations, specifying detailed parameters and 
     limitations on military operations, and managing military 
     planning and the execution of plans.
       (5) As stated in section 101(a) of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021(a)), the ``function of the 
     Council shall be to advise the President with respect to the 
     integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies 
     relating to the national security so as to enable the 
     military services and the other departments and agencies of 
     the Government to cooperate more effectively in matters 
     involving the national security''.
       (6) As stated in the November 1961 staff reports and 
     recommendations on ``Organizing for National Security'' 
     submitted to the Committee on Government Operations of the 
     Senate by the Subcommittee on National Policy Machinery, 
     ``The Council is an interagency committee: It can inform, 
     debate, review, adjust, and validate... The Council is not a 
     decisionmaking body; it does not itself make policy. It 
     serves only in an advisory capacity to the President, helping 
     him arrive at decisions which he alone can make.''.
       (7) As noted in the 1987 Report of the President's Special 
     Review Board (commonly known as the ``Tower Commission 
     Report''), ``As a general matter, the [National Security 
     Council] staff should not engage in the implementation of 
     policy or the conduct of operations. This compromises their 
     oversight role and usurps the responsibilities of the 
     departments and agencies.''.
       (8) As noted in the ``Addendum on Structure and Process 
     Analyses: Volume II - Executive Office of the President,'' 
     accompanying the February 2001 U.S. Commission on National 
     Security/21st Century (commonly known as the ``Hart-Rudman 
     Commission''), ``[T]he degree to which the [National Security 
     Council] gets involved in operational issues raises a 
     question of congressional oversight. Today there is limited 
     congressional oversight of the [National Security Council]... 
     Assigning the [National Security Council] greater operational 
     responsibility would likely result in calls for more 
     congressional oversight and legislative control...''.
       (9) According to analysis from the Brookings Institution's 
     National Security Council Project, the size of the National 
     Security Council staff from the early 1960s to the mid-1990s 
     remained consistently under 60 personnel. Since then, it has 
     grown significantly in size.
       (10) As former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew 
     Brzezinski, wrote in ``The NSC's Midlife Crisis'' in Foreign 
     Policy, Winter 1987-1988, ``There is no magic number, but it 
     would appear that for successful strategic planning and 
     policy coordination 30-40 senior staff members are probably 
     adequate. However, to ensure effective supervision over 
     policy implementation as well, the size of the staff should 
     be somewhat larger. An optimal figure for the senior staff 
     probably would be about 50 senior staff members.''.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the function of the National Security Council, 
     consistent with the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     3001 et seq.), is to advise the President as an independent 
     honest broker on national security matters, to coordinate 
     national security activities across departments and agencies, 
     and to make recommendations to the President regarding 
     national security objectives and policy, and the size of the 
     staff of the National Security Council should be 
     appropriately aligned to this function;
       (2) the President is entitled to privacy in the Office of 
     the President and to a confidential relationship with the 
     National Security Advisor and the National Security Council; 
     and

[[Page H2678]]

       (3) however, a National Security Council, enabled by a 
     large staff, that assumes a central policymaking or 
     operational role is no longer advisory and should be publicly 
     accountable to the American people through Senate 
     confirmation of its leadership and the activities of the 
     Council subject to direct oversight by Congress.
       (c) Amendments to National Security Act of 1947.--Section 
     101 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021), is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding after paragraph (6) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) the Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs.'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``shall receive 
     compensation at the rate of $10,000 a year.'' and inserting 
     ``shall report to, and be under the general supervision of, 
     the Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs.'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (d) through (l) as 
     subsections (e) through (m), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d)(1)(A) Except as provided by subparagraph (B), the 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs 
     shall be appointed by the President.
       ``(B) If the staff of the Council exceeds 100 covered 
     employees at any point during a term of the President, and 
     for the duration of such term (without regard to any changes 
     to the number of such covered employees), the Assistant to 
     the President for National Security Affairs shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       ``(2)(A) Beginning on the date on which the staff of the 
     Council exceeds 100 covered employees, the person appointed 
     as the Assistant under paragraph (1)(A), the person nominated 
     by the President to be appointed the Assistant under 
     paragraph (1)(B), or any other person designated by the 
     President to serve as the Assistant in an acting capacity, 
     may serve in an acting capacity for no longer than 210 days.
       ``(B) If the person nominated by the President to be 
     appointed the Assistant under paragraph (1)(B) is rejected by 
     the Senate, withdrawn, or returned to the President by the 
     Senate, the President shall nominate another person and the 
     person serving as the acting Assistant may continue to 
     serve--
       ``(i) until the second nomination is confirmed; or
       ``(ii) for no more than 210 days after the second 
     nomination is rejected, withdrawn, or returned.
       ``(3) The President shall notify Congress in writing not 
     more than seven days after the date on which the staff of the 
     Council exceeds 100 covered employees.
       ``(4) In this subsection, the term `covered employees' 
     means each of the following officers and employees (counted 
     without regard to full-time equivalent basis):
       ``(A) Officers and employees occupying a position funded by 
     the Executive Office of the President performing a function 
     of the Council.
       ``(B) Officers, employees, and members of the Armed Forces 
     from any department, agency, or independent establishment of 
     the executive branch of the Government that are on detail to 
     the Council performing a function of the Council.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3(12) of the 
     International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 
     6402(12)) is amended by striking ``section 101(i)'' and 
     inserting ``section 101(l)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to an issue that relates to the 
ability of Congress to do its job under the Constitution and the 
appropriate balance of powers because I think everybody agrees that a 
President ought to have advisers, and that there ought to be a zone, a 
protected zone for those advisers to offer advice to the President.
  But the problem is when those advisers do more than advise, when they 
direct, and when they, in fact, get into the operational military chain 
of command, that is a problem.
  What we have seen in recent years is a tremendous increase in the 
number of staff at the National Security Council. And what we have also 
seen is an astonishing increase in micromanagement and direction of 
military forces that come from these NSC staffers.
  In effect, they insert themselves into the military chain of command 
and, yet, they are not confirmed by the Senate, nor is their 
supervisor, and they never have to come testify to us about the 
direction they give the military.
  That is the reason that there has developed an imbalance in the 
balance of powers as constructed under the Constitution.
  Every previous Secretary of Defense in the Obama administration has 
complained about this. Typical are the comments of Secretary Gates: It 
was the operational micromanagement that drove me nuts of the White 
House and national security staffers calling senior commanders out in 
the field second-guessing commanders.
  Secretary Panetta and Secretary Hagel have said similar things, as 
has former Under Secretary Michele Flournoy.
  So my amendment does not tell the President how many people he can 
have. He can have 10,000 if he wants, but if he goes above a certain 
number, they are not just advising, they are directing, and the 
National Security Adviser must then be confirmed by the Senate.
  This will not affect President Obama. It is the next President. But 
the next President will have a choice. Do you have a relatively small 
or the historically average number of advisers? If you do more, you 
have to get confirmed by the Senate.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The problem is--just two quick points here--first of all, as we have 
discussed throughout the conversation about the Department of Defense 
authorization bill this year, the threat environment has grown much 
more complex, and the rise in the size of the national security staff 
is a reflection of that, of the various different challenges that are 
throughout the world.
  They have tried to find expertise in all of these different areas, 
and limiting them to 100, at this point, given the responsibilities 
that they have, would basically take it all the way down to the point 
where the admin staff would be the most that they could put in place. 
They have needs for the number of people that they have.
  Now, the second problem that Mr. Thornberry points out, I think, is a 
very legitimate problem. The thing is, whether you have 100 or 400, the 
President's NSC staff can do the same thing; they can not pay attention 
to the Department of Defense to the degree that they should. That has 
nothing to do with how many people there happen to be at the NSC. I 
agree with Mr. Thornberry that that has been a problem.

  Certainly we would like Commanders in Chief to be more in touch with 
the Department of Defense and with the commanders in the field, and not 
be overridden by the NSC, but that is a problem that exists, regardless 
of the numbers or even what you call the President's staff.
  So I think this amendment would significantly hamper the ability of 
the National Security Council to do the job that it was appointed or 
created to do, which is to keep the President advised of all the 
various different threats that are out there. And to give them the 
ability to do that, they are going to need more than 100 people.
  So I will oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I stand in whole support of what Chairman 
Thornberry is proposing.
  Section 101 of the National Security Act of 1947 says: ``The function 
of the Council shall be to advise the President . . . ''
  Obviously, we want the President to get the best advice possible, 
but, historically, the National Security Act designated--they had 
between 50 and 60 people between the 1960s and the mid 1990s. But now 
it has grown to hundreds of people. We are talking about literally 400 
people, by some counts, and we have got an NSC that is now not 
necessarily accountable. I would like to see the Senate confirmation if 
it moves about 100.
  What we see is the NSC is not only engaging in direction on the 
field, but also engaging in public relations battles and doing things 
well outside, I think, the scope that was originally put forward.

[[Page H2679]]

  Mr. Chairman, today we had a hearing. We had called Ben Rhodes to 
come testify to this hearing. But then, claiming executive privilege, 
Neil Eggleston, the General Counsel, said this person could not come.
  Ben Rhodes goes and talks to the media, he talks to his echo chamber. 
Ben Rhodes will go out and do public speaking. He will do everything 
except come testify in front of Congress, and then hides behind this 
shield that does not allow for openness and transparency.
  We want an NSC that helps make policy and direct operations and 
should be publicly accountable, if that is what they are going to be 
doing.
  The President has a choice. Keep the NSC small and advisory to 
maintain the status quo. That is what it was originally intended to do, 
but it has gone far more than that. It has become a public relations 
machine. It has become something that is problematic at every level.
  I think Chairman Thornberry is exactly right. I think all of our 
colleagues should support this amendment. It is the right thing to do, 
and I stand in whole support of it.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, H.L. Mencken once said that for every human 
problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Thornberry's amendment and for what 
is behind it.
  He talks about micromanagement. Micromanagement goes back to the very 
founding of the National Security Council. You think that Richard 
Nixon's Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense didn't think Henry 
Kissinger micromanaged when he was the National Security Adviser?
  He surreptitiously altered the U.S. policy to China, on his own, with 
his staff at NSC.
  There is a long tradition of micromanagement and interference, and I 
have no doubt that Mr. Thornberry is right. Every Secretary of Defense 
and every Secretary of State would have a similar complaint. Of course 
they would, and they might be right.
  To elevate this job over 100 people, to Senate confirmation, actually 
aggravates the problem. Now you are going to codify the 
micromanagement. You are actually going to make this a policymaking 
apparatus, in direct competition with the very department you are 
trying to help, the Department of Defense and the Department of State. 
It is the wrong answer to the growing size of an NSC.
  I don't remember Republican complaints about the growth of the NSC 
under the previous administration, and maybe we can work together in 
the future to try to make sure that we have a more manageable size.
  I applaud, certainly, the fact that the current NSC administrator has 
reduced the NSC by 12 percent. I know we can do better. But I don't 
think this amendment is the way to do it, respectfully.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentleman that I 
have no further speakers and am prepared to close on this side if the 
gentleman is.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time just to reiterate the argument.
  The National Security Council was formed for the very specific 
purpose of allowing the President to have that type of confidential 
advisement where people could speak frankly and give the President the 
advice that he needs to make decisions on matters of national security. 
Regrettably, our national security environment has grown more complex.
  I will point out that the current National Security Adviser has 
actually shrunk the size of the National Security Council since she 
took over. It was 411, and it is now down to 365. So they are making 
efforts to get that under control. But to shrink this to 100 and, as 
Mr. Connolly pointed out, to make it subject to Senate confirmation 
would simply lock it in as a competing force to the very entities that 
the sponsor of this amendment would like to see have a greater voice, 
and therefore it would be counterproductive and would not achieve its 
goal even though, again, I certainly agree that there should be greater 
transparency.
  I don't think there is a Member of Congress who has not complained at 
some point throughout the history about the lack of transparency 
between the White House and Congress on matters of national security. 
That battle will continue whether this amendment passes or not. I don't 
think this amendment will advance the interests of national security, 
and, therefore, I oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not require any President to do 
anything. There is a choice, and the choice that any President will 
face is, if you go above a certain number, then I think common sense 
tells us that these folks are doing more than advising; they are in 
operations.
  As a matter of fact, the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
in the Obama administration Pentagon, Ms. Flournoy, has testified that, 
as the staffs grow, they tend to get more into operational details and 
tactical kinds of oversight. Historically, when you have had smaller 
national security staffs--for example, the Scowcroft era--they had a 
very clear understanding of what their role was.
  This is a matter of common sense. Absolutely, there are no 
guarantees. You might have one person who would try to direct; but, 
generally, the more people you have got, the more stuff they are going 
to try to micromanage.
  So I don't prevent a President from doing anything with this 
amendment. I simply say that it is a choice. You can have 100 people or 
fewer and not go before the Senate. If you have more than that, you 
have got to get Senate confirmed like the Director of OMB is now. I 
think that is what makes sense. I hope Members will support the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 1032 and 1033.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike sections 1032 and 1033 of 
the bill, which prohibit the use of funds to transfer detainees from 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States or to construct or expand 
any facility in the U.S. to house any individual currently detained at 
Guantanamo.
  Simply put, the section is designed to prevent the closure of the 
detention facility at Guantanamo and to make it as difficult as 
possible to transfer detainees to a different facility. My amendment is 
intended to do the opposite and to finally bring to a close a shameful 
chapter of American history.
  The President's Statement of Administration Policy says the 
following: ``The administration strongly objects to several provisions 
of the bill that relate to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba. As the administration has said many times before, operating this 
facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging 
our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent 
extremists. In February, the administration submitted a comprehensive 
plan to safely and responsibly close the detention facility at 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and to bring this chapter of our history to a 
close. Rather than taking steps to close the facility, this bill aims 
to extend its operation. Sections 1032 and 1033 would continue to 
prohibit the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the

[[Page H2680]]

United States or even to construct or modify any facility in the United 
States to house detainees. These restrictions would limit the ability 
of the executive branch to take the steps necessary to develop 
alternative locations for a detention facility, and from fulfilling its 
commitment to close the facility at Guantanamo.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is truly astonishing that in 2016 the United States 
continues to hold people indefinitely who have not been charged, let 
alone convicted, of any crime and who, in some cases, have been judged 
not to pose any threat to the United States. By continuing to hold 
prisoners indefinitely without charging them and without trial is 
inconsistent with our professed support of liberty.
  Now, I know some will say the detainees are dangerous terrorists, and 
some undoubtedly are. But some of them are not. They are merely people 
who were captured in some way but who have not been charged or judged 
as terrorists. Some of them are simply victims of the fact that the 
United States paid bounties to people in Afghanistan years ago to turn 
in people who they said were terrorists. The Hatfields turned in the 
McCoys because--why not? We were giving them a bounty of a few thousand 
dollars a head.
  For the truly dangerous, we ought to prosecute them and, if 
convicted, punish them appropriately. We have, for those who need it, 
supermax prisons in the United States from which no one has ever 
escaped. There is no reason to spend so much money in Guantanamo and 
have this continuing shame on the reputation of the United States.
  Speaking of money, GTMO is the world's most expensive prison by far. 
We are spending about $2.9 million annually per prisoner. It costs us 
less than $35,000 per prisoner to hold someone in a supermax facility 
in the United States. Frankly, they don't deserve the spending. We 
should be spending that money here in the United States, not on 
terrorists, but on teachers or maybe on defense. No one will argue that 
that money could not be spent better somewhere else.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter signed by 
more than 30 retired generals urging the Congress to responsibly close 
the detention facility at Guantanamo. They quote President George Bush 
when he said that the facility had become a ``propaganda tool for our 
enemies.''

                                                    March 1, 2016.
     Senator John McCain,
     Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Russell Senate 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Senator Jack Reed,
     Ranking Member, Senate Armed Service Committee, Russell 
         Senate Building, Washington, DC.
     Representative Mac Thornberry,
     Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Representative Adam Smith,
     Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House 
         Office Building. Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: For over seven years we, 
     a group of retired flag and general officers of the United 
     States Armed Forces, have advocated the responsible closure 
     of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. We have done 
     this because it is what is best for our country. It is in our 
     national security interests, and above all, it is about 
     reestablishing who we are as a country.
       Last week the administration presented its plan for closing 
     the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. As the chairmen and 
     ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Service 
     Committees, yours is a solemn responsibility. We write to 
     encourage you to use this plan as a foundation to come 
     together and find a path to finally shutter the detention 
     facility. This should not be a political issue. Former 
     President George W. Bush determined that Guantanamo should be 
     closed because, in his words, ``. . . the detention facility 
     had become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a 
     distraction for our allies. I worked to find a way to close 
     the prison without compromising security.'' The current plan 
     similarly seeks to achieve that objective, following the 
     advice of our nation's top military, intelligence, and law 
     enforcement leaders.
       Closing Guantanamo will not be easy, but it is the right 
     thing to do, and we call on you to work together to 
     accomplish it. We take heart that our nation has elected 
     people who will exercise their conscientious judgment, but 
     who will not allow politics to obscure courage. Compromise 
     for the common good is the true exercise of leadership and 
     courage.
           Sincerely,
       General Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret); Vice Admiral Richard H. 
     Carmona, USPHS (Ret.); Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, 
     Jr., USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Richard L. Kelly, USMC 
     (Ret.); Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.); 
     Lieutenant General Keith J. Stalder, USMC (Ret.); Major 
     General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.); Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, 
     JAGC, USN (Ret.); Major General Michael R. Lehnert, USMC 
     (Ret.); Major General Eric T. Olson, USA (Ret.); Major 
     General Walter L. Stewart, Jr., USA (Ret.); Major General 
     Margaret Woodward, USAF (Ret.); Brigadier General David M. 
     Brahms, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA 
     (Ret.).
       General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General 
     John Castellaw, USMC (Ret.); Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN 
     (Ret.); Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.); 
     Lieutenant General Norman R. Seip, USAF (Ret.); Major General 
     Paul D. Eaton, USA (Ret.); Rear Admiral Don Guter, JAGC, USN 
     (Ret.); Major General Carl B. Jensen, USMC (Ret.); Major 
     General William L. Nash, USA (Ret.); Major General Thomas J. 
     Romig, USA (Ret.); Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA 
     (Ret.); Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret.); Brigadier 
     General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General 
     Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.).
       Brigadier General Alan K. Fry, USA (Ret.); Brigadier 
     General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General 
     Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Daniel P. 
     Woodward, USAF (Ret.); Brigadier General Leif H. Hendrickson, 
     USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.); 
     Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.); Brigadier 
     General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.).

  Mr. NADLER. So, again, for all these reasons--it weakens our 
security, it drains our resources, it emboldens our enemies, and it is 
contrary to liberty and everything that we stand for--I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and to lift these restrictions on 
closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. If people must be 
kept in prison, then they can be kept here a heck of a lot more cheaply 
and without subjecting us to the continued propaganda against 
Guantanamo.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a distinguished member of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take particular issue with a point made by 
the gentleman from New York. He is saying we can't afford to keep 
Guantanamo open. I stand here today and declare to you that we can't 
afford to close it.
  Let's look at the numbers. According to SOUTHCOM, which runs the 
detention facility, the annual operating cost is just over $100 
million. However, according to this administration's own figures, the 
cost to renovate a facility in the United States is nearly half a 
billion dollars, not including the annual operating costs.
  Mr. Chairman, what is the life of an American worth? Is the gentleman 
from New York willing to stand here and have that conversation? I don't 
think so.
  This is a misguided amendment that would not make Americans safer. It 
is in the best interests of our national security to keep Guantanamo 
Bay open, and, as the numbers show, it is also in the best interests of 
the American taxpayer.
  I just also want to respond to another quick comment over here where 
he talked about some of those people are just merely detained. I just 
want to remind us in this Chamber that these are the worst of the 
worst. These are the most hardened terrorists the world has ever seen, 
and, more importantly, they have the blood of Americans on their hands 
and should be kept in a safe facility where they are.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues reject this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

[[Page H2681]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard again the mantra from the other side: 
These people are the worst of the worst. They have American blood on 
their hands.
  Some of them may, but many of them don't. They have not been tried. I 
don't know with what authority you say they are the worst of the worst; 
they have American blood on their hands. True of some, not of others.
  What kind of system is it for the United States to simply take 
people, not try them, not accuse them, and hold them indefinitely 
because somebody says that they are the worst of the worst? On what 
authority and on what proof?
  As for the funding, it costs between $3 million and $5 million--$2.9 
million here in 2013, closer to $5 million now--per person per year. It 
costs $35,000 to hold someone in a supermax facility. I don't know why 
we have to build new supermax facilities, but if we do, we should. The 
point is it is incredibly expensive to keep them there for no reason.
  Again, some of those people ought to be tried and sentenced to life 
imprisonment or whatever, some of them ought to be freed. Some of them 
have been judged not to be, have already been found not to be a danger 
to the United States. Simply repeating over and over again that they 
are all the worst of the worst, they all have American blood on their 
hands, when it is simply not true--some of them yes, some of them no--
does not make the case.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup) of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Nadler 
amendment because the amendment would allow detainees currently housed 
at Guantanamo to be transferred to the United States. Why? Why do you 
want to do that, to endanger our communities? That is what I ask, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I served at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. We were attacked three, four 
times a week. Why? To try to release these prisoners. We have seen that 
our enemy is capable of planning and, in some instances, launching 
attacks within the United States.
  Currently, this move is not allowed. We asked the President for 
details on a plan. It was said that it was comprehensive. It didn't say 
where they would be housed or what the housing would entail or how much 
it would cost the taxpayer. This was not a serious plan.
  What we do need, however, is a consistent policy on how to deal with 
future terrorist detainees. I would agree with that. Guantanamo remains 
our best option right now. It is a safe and appropriate location to 
hold detainees. It is secure and distant from our homeland.
  Guantanamo also provides humane conditions for the detainees. They 
have appropriate access to health care, the same as our troops have 
there. They have recreational activities, culture, and religious 
materials.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), who serves on the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Nadler 
amendment as well. These are, in fact, the worst of the worst. The 
detainees that remain now, well under 100, are not cooks and bottle 
washers, but serious men who meant to do serious harm to the United 
States.
  I want to spend the time that I have talking about a particularly 
pernicious argument that has been made in favor of closing this 
facility. It is an argument that says that these men attacked America 
because of the existence of Guantanamo Bay. It is inaccurate, it is 
false, and the facts don't support that claim.
  Indeed, we have evidence, 34 translated messages from al Qaeda, from 
terrorists, talking about the reasons for their attacks, and only 7 
times was Guantanamo Bay ever mentioned. It was mentioned in each case 
as a glancing issue. Iraq, Afghanistan, and even the Crusades were 
mentioned hundreds of times, but Guantanamo Bay is not the reason that 
they attacked America.
  I can tell you that we wrote a letter to the Director of National 
Intelligence, Mr. Clapper. He, too, confirmed that this is not a 
motivation for the attacks. We should remember that these attacks began 
well before the existence of Guantanamo Bay.
  The fact that Guantanamo Bay acts as an agent to promote terrorism is 
false and must be rejected, as must this amendment.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), who is a member of the House 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
amendment. The Obama administration's efforts to close the prison at 
Guantanamo Bay are both irresponsible and dangerous.
  A report from January of this year by the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence indicates that the number of Guantanamo detainees 
released by the Obama administration and suspected of returning to the 
battlefield has doubled since the last recidivism report in 2015.
  Those who remain in Guantanamo Bay are the worst of the worst; so it 
is safe to presume that, if released, an even higher percentage of them 
would remain a threat to our national security. These are not U.S. 
citizens. They are foreign, unlawful enemy combatants that have 
directly supported hostilities against the United States and our 
allies.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Chairman, I have and will continue to oppose any attempt to 
transfer these detainees to my home State of Colorado or to any other 
State. They must be kept at Guantanamo Bay.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. COFFMAN. Congress has a responsibility to the American people to 
ensure that these unlawful enemy combatants are not brought to the 
United States. Mr. Chairman, these congressional restrictions must 
remain in place.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time does the other 
side have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the chair of the Oversight 
and Investigations Subcommittee.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, it is reckless to propose this 
amendment. Not only does it allow them to come here on our own shores 
and live in our own neighborhoods, but the administration has estimated 
it would cost potentially $475 million just to move them here.
  It also removes the prohibition that these detainees could be 
transferred to Somalia, Libya, and Syria. We do not want these 
terrorists released back onto the battlefield where they could kill our 
soldiers.
  This is a reckless amendment. It needs to be defeated. We need to 
keep them at GTMO, use our taxpayer dollars wisely, and ensure the 
safety of our neighborhoods.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mrs. Walorski

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

[[Page H2682]]

  


     SEC. 10__. APPLICATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT TO 
                   THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

       (a) In General.--Section 552(f)(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of 
     Information Act), is amended by inserting ``and the National 
     Security Council'' after ``the Executive Office of the 
     President''.
       (b) Effective Date; Application.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date on which the first Assistant to 
     the President for National Security Affairs is appointed by 
     the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, pursuant to section 101(d)(1)(B) of the National 
     Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021(d)(1)(B)), as added by 
     title IX of this Act.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to any record created by the 
     National Security Council on or after the date specified in 
     paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentlewoman 
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment which addresses both the 
incredibly important role played by the President's National Security 
Council, but also the concerning trend of consolidation of authority in 
the White House.
  Over the past two administrations, the NSC has transformed from 
simply a coordination and advisory body to something else entirely.
  We recently heard from President Obama's three former Secretaries of 
Defense--Gates, Panetta, and Hagel--each outlining the challenges they 
faced in trying to manage the Defense Department and combat operations 
in the face of a more intrusive NSC.
  Most notably, Secretary Gates said: ``It was the operational 
micromanagement that drove me nuts of White House and NSC (National 
Security Council) staffers calling senior commanders in the field . . . 
second guessing commanders.''
  The NSC was never intended to operate in this manner. It was intended 
to be an advisory body and interagency coordination center for the 
President. However, its size has exploded from roughly 100 staffers 
under President Clinton, to 200 under President Bush, and now 400 under 
President Obama.
  Moving decisionmaking away from the departments undermines the 
authority of Secretaries and General officers who have been confirmed 
by the Senate and concentrates power with unelected, unconfirmed, and 
unaccountable bureaucrats who care more about optics and narratives.
  This is best illustrated in the recent profile of Deputy National 
Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who has a master's in creative writing and 
no practical experience in foreign policy.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Security Council has moved far beyond its 
original advisory role to one in which NSC staffers make critical 
operational decisions.
  My amendment simply restores accountability to this operational 
organization by requiring the NSC to participate in the Freedom of 
Information Act, or FOIA, upon coordination of the National Security 
Advisor by the Senate.
  Bringing the NSC under FOIA is not without precedent. The NSC 
actually maintained a FOIA program and complied with requests under 
Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. However, a 1996 
court case ruled that, since it was an advisory body, it did not need 
to participate.
  The NSC is not simply an advisory body anymore. It is time to bring 
it back under FOIA and shine light on its activities.
  This amendment fits well into Chairman Thornberry's broader NSC 
reform efforts. I thank him for making this a priority in this year's 
NDAA.
  As the chairman outlined earlier, these provisions will make it clear 
to future administrations that the NSC cannot continue to just grow in 
size and mission without consequential oversight measures.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the 
esteemed chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes the point very well that, at a 
certain point, you get enough people that the institution of the 
National Security Council staff takes on different characteristics.
  When it has those different characteristics, then you have to comply 
with FOIA, then you have to be confirmed by the Senate, and then you 
have to be able to come before Congress and justify the decisions that 
you have made.
  That is the point with both of our amendments, that there comes a 
point that basic nature changes and there are implications of that, 
including the one that is related to the gentlewoman's amendment.
  I support her amendment, and I hope Members will support it.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his strong 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Zinke), my friend and colleague on the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my colleague from 
Indiana's amendment.
  The amendment is simply about restoring public accountability and 
transparency to the National Security Council.
  As a former Deputy Commander of Special Operations in Iraq, I have 
personally seen what happens. Oftentimes, our rules of engagement that 
dictate how we fight are politicized and it diminishes our ability to 
fight. I have seen it. It is time to change.
  If they move out of an advisory role to a role where they are 
commanding and interpreting commands, then we need FOIA. America 
deserves accountability. America deserves our ability to look at who is 
calling the shots and why.
  This is not a hit on the administration. This is an American issue. 
When a role is advisory and comes from advisory to command, then that 
command needs to be held accountable. That is what we do.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Montana.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, none of what has been said really 
changes under these amendments. What all this really is is an argument 
to get rid of the NSC, to say that this group of folks should not 
exist. As we argued before, the reason the National Security Council 
was created was to offer the President close and confidential advice.
  Now, that National Security Council, as was pointed out by other 
people who have made arguments about this, has consistently been 
criticized by the other Departments, going all the way back, I imagine, 
to when the NSC was formed. Whether there is 100, 200, or 300 of them, 
that really doesn't change that basic conflict.
  Do you believe the President needs these confidential advisers? If 
you do, then you should oppose these amendments. They should get rid of 
the NSC. If you are going to take away the advice and their ability to 
do that, then we should just have the DOD and the President shouldn't 
have these advisers.
  But there is a reason the NSC was created in the first place, to give 
the President those close advisers. Further restricting it in this 
manner effectively eliminates the NSC.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely not an amendment to 
get rid of the NSC. This just simply brings accountability and 
transparency into a very important agency, into a White House that has 
taken this to no longer just an advisory agency role on behalf of the 
American people who we serve.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  The amendment was agreed to.


      Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 732, I 
offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.

[[Page H2683]]

  Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 19, 28, 29, 30, 
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 printed in part B of House Report 
114-569, offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas:


         amendment no. 19 offered by mr. calvert of california

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

     SEC. 1112. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN WORKFORCE 
                   PERSONNEL AND CONTRACTORS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) A large, disproportionate, and duplicative civilian 
     work force coupled with bureaucratic, structural 
     inefficiencies has detracted from the Pentagon's production 
     of combat power and its ability to modernize.
       (2) The recent uniformed military drawdown has not been 
     accompanied by an equivalent reduction of either the civilian 
     or contractor work force. Right sizing the civilian workforce 
     must be statutory in number but implemented with executive 
     discretion. Across-the-board cuts to the defense civilian 
     workforce are not the answer.
       (3) Spending on contract services is over 50 percent of all 
     Department of Defense purchases even as the total defense 
     budget has dropped. Expenditures in services contracting lack 
     appropriate oversight, accountability, and scrutiny.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit a 
     preliminary report within 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and a final report within 180 days 
     after such date, to the congressional defense committees 
     detailing the structure and number of the civilian workforce 
     and contractors of the Department of Defense.
       (2) Contents.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), each 
     report shall include the following for each of fiscal years 
     2017 through 2020, including a breakdown in location, job 
     function, General Schedule (GS) level, and date of when the 
     job was created for the following individuals:
       (A) The total number of full time equivalent employees, 
     including each of the following:
       (i) The total number of Senior Executive Service employees 
     and their assignments.
       (ii) The total number of civilian employees of the 
     Department of Defense within the military health care system.
       (iii) The total number of civilian employees of the 
     Department employed at depots, arsenals, and ammunition 
     facilities.
       (B) The total number of civilian contractors of the 
     Department of Defense, including each of the following:
       (i) The total number of civilian contractors for weapons 
     acquisitions.
       (ii) The total number of civilian contractors for services 
     or labor for non-weapon systems acquisitions.
       (iii) The total number of civilian contractors employed at 
     depots, arsenals, and ammunition facilities.
       (3) Preliminary report.--The preliminary report provided 
     under this subsection--
       (A) shall cover the contents described in paragraph (2) in 
     as much detail as is ascertainable within 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) shall include an explanation of any impediments to 
     developing a complete and final report by 180 days after such 
     date of enactment.


          amendment no. 28 offered by mr. collins of new york

       At the end of subtitle B of title III, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 3__. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR MUNITIONS DISPOSAL.

       In carrying out the disposal of munitions in the stockpile 
     of conventional ammunition awaiting demilitarization and 
     disposal (commonly referred to as munitions in the ``B5A 
     account'') the Secretary of the Army shall consider using 
     cost-competitive technologies that minimize waste generation 
     and air emissions as alternatives to disposal by open 
     burning, open detonation, direct contact combustion, and 
     incineration.


          amendment no. 29 offered by mr. russell of oklahoma

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

     SEC. 3__. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY 
                   TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Defense, acting through the commander of the 
     United States Transportation Command, should reassess the 
     guidelines for the evaluation of motor carrier safety 
     performance under the Transportation Protective Services 
     program taking into consideration the Government 
     Accountability Office report numbered GAO-16-82 and titled 
     ``Defense Transportation; DoD Needs to Improve the Evaluation 
     of Safety and Performance Information for Carriers 
     Transporting Security-Sensitive Materials''.
       (b) Evaluation of Safety Technology.--To avoid catastrophic 
     accidents and exposure of material, the Secretary shall 
     evaluate the need for proven safety technology in vehicles 
     transporting Transportation Protective Services shipments, 
     such as electronic logging devices, roll stability control, 
     forward collision avoidance, lane departure warning systems, 
     and speed limiters.


          amendment no. 30 offered by mr. costa of california

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

     SEC. 3__. BRIEFING ON WELL-DRILLING CAPABILITIES OF ACTIVE 
                   DUTY AND RESERVE COMPONENTS.

       (a) Briefing Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives (and other 
     congressional defense committees on request) a briefing on 
     the well-drilling capabilities of the active and reserve 
     components.
       (b) Elements.--The briefing under subsection (a) shall 
     include a description of--
       (1) the training requirements of active and reserve units 
     with well-drilling capabilities;
       (2) the locations at which such units conduct training 
     relating to well-drilling; and
       (3) the cost and feasibility of rotating the training 
     locations of such units to areas in the United States that 
     are affected by drought conditions.


       amendment no. 31 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia

       At the end of subtitle B of title V (page 119, after line 
     18), add the following new section:

     SEC. 515. ELECTRONIC TRACKING OF OPERATIONAL ACTIVE-DUTY 
                   SERVICE PERFORMED BY MEMBERS OF THE READY 
                   RESERVE OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       The Secretary of Defense shall establish an electronic 
     means by which members of the Ready Reserve of the Armed 
     Forces can track their operational active-duty service 
     performed after January 28, 2008, under section 12301(a), 
     12301(d), 12301(g), 12302, or 12304 of title 10, United 
     States Code. The tour calculator shall specify early 
     retirement credit authorized for each qualifying tour of 
     active duty, as well as cumulative early reserve retirement 
     credit authorized to date under section 12731(f) of such 
     title.


            amendment no. 32 offered by ms. meng of new york

       At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 568. REPORT ON COMPOSITION OF SERVICE ACADEMIES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services 
     of the Senate a report on the demographic composition of 
     service academies that includes--
       (1) an analysis of--
       (A) the demographic composition of each service academy's--
       (i) recruits;
       (ii) nominees;
       (iii) applicants;
       (iv) qualified applicants;
       (v) admits;
       (vi) enrollees;
       (vii) graduates; and
       (viii) graduate occupation placement;
       (B) how such composition compares to the demographic 
     composition of--
       (i) the United States;
       (ii) enlisted members of the Armed Forces;
       (iii) officers of the Armed Forces; and
       (iv) other institutions of higher education (as defined in 
     section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a)); and
       (C) the demographic composition of each quintile of 
     academic ranking for each service academy's graduating class;
       (2) a description of the considerations given to 
     demographic composition in each service academy's--
       (A) recruitment efforts (including funding decisions made 
     to further such efforts);
       (B) qualification decisions; and
       (C) admissions decisions; and
       (3) recommendations for best--
       (A) recruitment practices;
       (B) nominating practices;
       (C) qualification decision practices; and
       (D) admissions practices.
       (b) Definition.--In this section the term ``service 
     academy'' means each of the following:
       (1) The United States Military Academy.
       (2) The United States Naval Academy.
       (3) The United States Air Force Academy.
       (4) The United States Coast Guard Academy.
       (5) The United States Merchant Marine Academy.
       (c) Scope of Report.--The report required by this section 
     shall examine each service academy class admitted following 
     the date of enactment of section 543 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160).


           amendment no. 33 offered by mr. palmer of alabama

       At the end of subtitle G of title V (page 162, after line 
     20), add the following new section:

     SEC. 585. AUTHORIZATION FOR AWARD OF DISTINGUISHED-SERVICE 
                   CROSS TO FIRST LIEUTENANT MELVIN M. SPRUIELL 
                   FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING WORLD WAR II.

       (a) Waiver of Time Limitations.--Notwithstanding the time 
     limitations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United 
     States Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the 
     awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the Armed 
     Forces, the Secretary of the Army may award the 
     Distinguished-Service Cross under section 3742 of such title 
     to First Lieutenant Melvin M. Spruiell of the Army for the 
     acts of valor during World War II described in subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor referred to 
     in subsection (a) are the actions of First Lieutenant Melvin 
     M. Spruiell

[[Page H2684]]

     on June 10 and 11, 1944, as a member of the Army serving in 
     France with the 377th Parachute Field Artillery, 101st 
     Airborne Division.


           amendment no. 34 offered by ms. sewell of alabama

       Page 143, line 3, add after the period the following: ``The 
     cyber institute may place a special emphasis on entering into 
     a partnership under this subsection with a local educational 
     agency located in a rural, underserved, or underrepresented 
     community.''.


          amendment no. 35 offered by mr. takano of california

       Page 150, after line 4, insert the following:
       (C) A comparison of the pilot program to other programs 
     conducted by the Department of Defense and Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to provide unemployment and underemployment 
     support to members of the reserve components and veterans.
       Page 150, line 5, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.


           amendment no. 36 offered by mr. grayson of florida

       At the end of subtitle E of title V (page 153, after line 
     9), add the following new section:

     SEC. 568. INCLUSION OF ALCOHOL, PRESCRIPTION DRUG, OPIOID, 
                   AND OTHER SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNSELING AS PART OF 
                   REQUIRED PRESEPARATION COUNSELING.

       Section 1142(b)(11) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before the period the following: ``and 
     information concerning the availability of treatment options 
     and resources to address substance abuse, including alcohol, 
     prescription drug, and opioid abuse''.


            amendment no. 37 offered by mr. bost of illinois

       At the end of subtitle F of title V insert the following:

     SEC. ____. IMPACT AID.

        Notwithstanding section 5(d) of the Every Student Succeeds 
     Act (Public Law 114-95; 129 Stat. 1806), the amendment made 
     by section 7004(1) of such Act (Public Law 114-95; 129 Stat. 
     2077)--
       (1) for fiscal year 2016, shall--
       (A) be applied as if amending section 8003(a)(5)(A) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as in effect 
     on the day before the date of enactment of the Every Student 
     Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95; 129 Stat. 1802); and
       (B) be in effect with respect to appropriations for use 
     under title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965, as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act; and
       (2) for fiscal year 2017 and each succeeding fiscal year, 
     shall be in effect with respect to appropriations for use 
     under title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public 
     Law 114-95; 129 Stat. 1802).


         amendment no. 38 offered by ms. delbene of washington

       At the end of subtitle F of title V (page 156, after line 
     23), add the following new section:

     SEC. 573. ELIMINATION OF TWO-YEAR ELIGIBILITY LIMITATION FOR 
                   NONCOMPETITIVE APPOINTMENT OF SPOUSES OF 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       Section 3330d(c) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) No time limitation on appointment.--A relocating 
     spouse of a member of the Armed Forces remains eligible for 
     noncompetitive appointment under this section for the 
     duration of the spouse's relocation to the permanent duty 
     station of the member.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, each of these amendments have been 
coordinated with both sides of the aisle. I urge Members to support 
this en bloc package.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time in today's debate.
  Mr. Chairman, as part of the Department of Defense's Innovative 
Readiness Training, a mission that provides military training and 
resources and supports local communities throughout the country, there 
are four National Guard teams that are currently practicing the fine 
art of well drilling in the United States prior to deploying abroad. 
Clearly, we know in parts of the Middle East having the water resources 
available to support our troops is absolutely essential.
  My amendment has the potential to help areas, though, in our country 
today as part of this training program. Regions throughout the country 
have experienced devastating droughts. Those in the area that I 
represent, the San Joaquin Valley of California, have experienced a 
loss of drinking water supplies as a result of these serious drought 
conditions they have had to face.
  In California alone, there have literally been thousands and 
thousands and thousands of households that have been without access to 
drinking water.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman.
  This amendment would try to respond to those thousands of households 
that have lost their source of drinking water. This amendment would 
require the Department of Defense to provide a report to Congress on 
the well drilling capabilities of military units and the feasibility of 
rotating their training locations so that they can do their training in 
areas where the devastating droughts have impacted to the greatest 
degree, primarily in western States.
  I think this is a commonsense amendment. I ask that it be adopted.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I rise to note my reservations about 
the characterization of civilian employees in the Calvert amendment to 
the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Although I 
believe it is important that we have a good assessment of the number 
and location of our civilian and contractor personnel who work at the 
Department of Defense, I believe it is also important that we 
accurately reflect the critical role that our federal civilians play in 
ensuring the military readiness of our nation.
  I have the distinct privilege of representing Hill Air Force Base in 
Ogden, Utah and serving on the House Armed Services Committee, 
Subcommittee on Readiness. As such, I have had a front row seat 
reviewing our nation's combat power and the role played by the civilian 
workforce in generating and supporting combat power. I can tell you 
that our civilian workforce does not detract from combat power, but 
serves as a force multiplier and as part of the backbone of military 
readiness. Without the men and women who serve at the Ogden Air 
Logistics Complex at Hill Air Force Base, as well as the other Air 
Logistics Complexes and military depots around the country in all of 
the services, we would have mission failure in any number of military 
aircraft on a daily basis, failing our warfighters, and costing lives. 
It is time that we stand up and salute our nation's federal civilians 
who work at the Department of Defense. Their work is valuable and their 
contributions are numerous.
  I think we need to tread very carefully in asserting Congressional 
findings that would cast a wide-net of negative aspersions on thousands 
of defense civilians who directly support the war fighter, and often 
make substantial sacrifices to do so. I am concerned that they are not 
unfairly pegged as being wasteful or superfluous to readiness. Yes, 
let's conduct oversight and study the defense civilian workforce, but 
let's hold off making such findings until after the facts are in and 
the defense committees have had adequate time to review and analyze the 
results. To do otherwise puts the cart before the horse, and is frankly 
unfair to thousands of my constituents who have suffered under this 
Administration's illegal decision to direct furloughs of working 
capital fund employees without pay. We cannot continue to treat our 
depot civilians in this manner without profound negative consequences 
to hard working families and ultimately to the warfighter.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my concern with only certain 
aspects of the Calvert amendment that is included in part of the second 
en bloc of amendments to the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense 
Authorization Act. I respect my colleague from California and his 
attempt to catalogue the numbers of civilians and contractors 
performing work for the Department of Defense; however, I object to the 
characterization of civilian employees and their role in the military 
structure.
  I have the great privilege of representing the men and women who 
serve our nation at Tinker Air Force Base and Fort Sill. There is no 
finer group of people anywhere in the world. They are patriots. And 
they serve as the backbone of military readiness for the U.S. Air Force 
and for the United States military. Without the work performed at 
Tinker, located in Oklahoma City, many of our most complex aircraft 
simply would not be mission ready. The aircraft could not be flown and 
our nation's defense would be greatly degraded. Therefore, to find that 
our civilian workforce is disproportionate, duplicative and is 
detracting from combat power is incorrect. Civilian employees are 
essential to the operations and readiness of our military. We simply 
cannot do the mission without them.

[[Page H2685]]

  I agree with the finding that across-the-board cuts to the defense 
civilian workforce are not the answer. However, it is important to 
note, that all areas of the workforce do not need additional cuts. For 
example, depots had already taken a greater percentage cut than the 
military and now we find ourselves in the unfortunate position that for 
military readiness purposes--for the absolute necessity of supporting 
our warfighter--we are in the position of requiring some of our Air 
Logistics Complexes to hire over 1,000 additional personnel per year 
for a 2 year period. In fact, this bill contains a provision which will 
provide direct hire authority so that the services can hire the people 
they need, quickly and efficiently. Sometimes in our zeal to limit or 
cut our civilians, we lose sight of the mission and make assumptions 
that are not rooted in fact.
  Again, I want to commend and thank our outstanding civilian workforce 
and particularly those who live and work in the great State of Oklahoma 
for their skill and their dedication to the military mission. Their 
contributions to our great country should be acknowledged and 
commended.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, Chairman Mac Thornberry, and Ranking Member 
Adam Smith, I rise in support of Rules Amendment Number 161 to H.R. 
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal year 
2017. However, I would first like to thank you for your thoughtful 
approach in writing this year's bill; it was not an easy task. The 
particular focus on end-force readiness restoration is to be commended; 
we cannot ask members of the armed forces to defend their country and 
democracy without adequately outfitting and training the soldier, unit 
and force. Additionally, I am pleased to see the NDAA's approach toward 
much needed acquisition reform, healthcare reform, Goldwater Nichols 
reform and more.
  However, as we debate today it is incumbent on us as Members of 
Congress to continue the discussion about the right mix of active duty, 
civilian and contractors at the Department of Defense.
  The recent uniformed military drawdown has not been accompanied by an 
equivalent reduction of either the civilian or contractor work force as 
in drawdowns in the past.
  A large, disproportionate, and duplicative work force coupled with 
bureaucratic, structural inefficiencies has detracted from the 
Pentagon's production of combat power and its ability to modernize.
  Right sizing the civilian workforce must be multifaceted, statutory 
in number, and implemented with executive discretion. Across the board 
cuts to the defense civilian workforce are not the answer.
  Spending on contract services is over 50 percent of all Department of 
Defense purchases even as the total defense budget has dropped. 
Expenditures in service contracting lack appropriate oversight, 
accountability, and scrutiny.
  However, no proper approach to addressing the civilian workforce may 
be accomplished without first understanding who these civilian workers 
are, where they are located, and what jobs they are performing. My 
amendment, Rules Committee Number 161, seeks a report by the Department 
of Defense on the total civilian workforce picture. In the past, 
reports have been requested but are fragmented in nature. The report I 
am requesting will require a projection from fiscal years 2017 through 
2020 of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) and contractor employees broken down 
into several sub-categories including location, job function, General 
Schedule (GS) level, and date of when the job was created.
  As we debate the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA), it is incumbent on us as Members of Congress to continue the 
discussion about the right mix of active duty, civilian and contractors 
at DoD.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my concern with certain 
aspects of the Calvert amendment that is included in part of the en 
bloc amendments to the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization 
Act that we will pass by voice vote. My colleague from California has 
every right to attempt to catalogue the quantity of civilian and 
contractors within the Department of Defense. But I must object to his 
characterization of our civilian defense employees' roles.
  I am lucky enough to represent nearly 80,000 federal employees, many 
of whom work at the Pentagon, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort 
Belvoir, or one of the myriad Department of Defense installations 
around Northern Virginia. This includes ground breaking work at the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, important work to keep us 
safe at Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the jobs supplying our 
military with the tools it needs at the Defense Logistics Agency. Our 
nation, its people, and its defenses would not by possible without the 
dedicated work of these individuals.
  Mr. Calvert's effort to categorize these civilian defense employees 
as disproportionate or duplicative undermines the incredible work they 
do every day to keep our military running. The ability to produce 
combat power, modernize, and keep our troops healthy and safe are 
critical functions at the Department of Defense. Moreover, they are 
critical functions performed by highly intelligent, accomplished, and 
dedicated civilian employees.
  Our civilian workforce has already weathered years of uncertain 
budgets, pay freezes, a government shutdown, and sequester furloughs. 
We should not further demean the important work they do with this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


              Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 394, after line 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 1048. REQUIREMENT RELATING TO TRANSFER OF EXCESS 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EQUIPMENT TO FEDERAL AND 
                   STATE AGENCIES.

       Section 2576a of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Preference for Border Security Purposes.--(1) In 
     transferring the personal property described in paragraph (2) 
     under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall give 
     preference to Federal and State agencies that agree to use 
     the property primarily for the purpose of strengthening 
     border security along the southern border of the United 
     States.
       ``(2) The personal property described in this section is--
       ``(A) surveillance unmanned aerial vehicles, including the 
     MQ-9 Reaper (also known as the `Predator B') and the Aerostat 
     radar system;
       ``(B) night-vision goggles; and
       ``(C) high mobility multi-purpose wheel vehicles (commonly 
     known as `humvees').''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 14 be modified in the manner that I have placed and filed 
at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:


      modification to amendment no. 14 offered by mr. poe of texas

       Page 394, after line 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 1048. REQUIREMENT RELATING TO TRANSFER OF EXCESS 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EQUIPMENT TO FEDERAL AND 
                   STATE AGENCIES.

       Section 2576a of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Preference for Border Security Purposes.--(1) In 
     transferring the personal property described in paragraph (2) 
     under this section, the Secretary of Defense may give first 
     preference to the Department of Homeland Security and then to 
     Federal and State agencies that agree to use the property 
     primarily for the purpose of strengthening border security 
     along the southern border of the United States.
       ``(2) The personal property described in this section is--
       ``(A) unmanned aerial vehicles;
       ``(B) the Aerostat radar system;
       ``(C) night-vision goggles; and
       ``(D) high mobility multi-purpose wheel vehicles (commonly 
     known as `humvees').''.

  Mr. POE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the modification?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment is very similar to amendments that have 
been on this House floor before, presented by me and others, and is 
similar to an amendment that passed unanimously in the FY 2015 NDAA. It 
is called the SEND Act. It addresses the process of sending excess 
military equipment, which is not being used, to our border security 
folks to help them secure the border. That is the purpose of previous

[[Page H2686]]

amendments and legislation that started all the way back in 2011.
  One way that the Department of Defense helps the Border Patrol is 
through the transfer of equipment that it deems to be in excess to its 
needs. Under current law, the transfer of this excess equipment gives 
some preference to counterdrug, counterterrorism, and some border 
security activities.
  This amendment simply takes that preference a step further, giving 
border security preference for a few specific pieces of equipment which 
are particularly useful for border security applications: unmanned 
surveillance vehicles, including aerostat blimps that are now being 
used, night vision goggles, and Humvees.
  The Border Patrol, as we all know, is the first and last line of 
defense against criminal gangs that come into the United States. In my 
home State of Texas, I have been to the border numerous times, and we 
have the same issue that other border States have with the criminal 
drug cartels, which are involved in not only bringing drugs into the 
United States, but in trafficking humans for sex slavery, labor 
slavery, and other purposes.
  After talking with them about many, many issues, we found out the 
situation on the border regarding equipment. A Texas ranger once told 
me that the drug cartels outman, outgun, out-finance, and out-equip the 
Border Patrol and those who are on the border who are trying to protect 
us from those criminal gangs that are coming into the United States.
  One of the issues the last time I was down at the border 2 or 3 weeks 
ago was that the Border Patrol was actually excited about these 
aerostats that are being used. That is a blimp that they put up in the 
sky, and it helps in surveillance along the border. They need more of 
those on the border. Of course, this amendment does exactly that. It 
gives a preference to those specific items that are mentioned in the 
amendment for the Border Patrol to use for border security purposes.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  This amendment is a solution in search of a problem. In fact, I think 
it will exacerbate some of the security problems we already have.
  As the gentleman knows, the border security agencies can already 
apply for this excess military equipment, but I ask those 
representatives who represent the people who live on the U.S. side of 
the U.S.-Mexico border--cities like San Diego, California; Nogales, 
Arizona; El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville, Texas--whether they want 
UAVs, or unmanned aerial vehicles, which could also be MQ-9 Reapers, 
flying over their homes, their schools, their neighborhoods, prying 
into their backyards each and every day.
  This is at a time when we are already spending $18 billion a year to 
secure our border with Mexico and when we are seeing less than zero 
migration from Mexico itself. In the year 2000, we had 1.6 million 
apprehensions. This last year, we didn't even reach 400,000 
apprehensions.
  Of any border of which we are told by the Director of the National 
Counterterrorism Center, by the Director of the FBI, by the Secretary 
of Homeland Security that there has never been nor is there now a 
terrorist, a terrorist organization, or a terrorist plot that is 
seeking to exploit the border with Mexico, what this does is further 
takes our eye off the ball where we have known risks and known threats 
to this country and to the homeland. It stokes fear and anxiety and, in 
some cases, hatred towards our neighbor to the south, towards those 
communities on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border--communities 
like my own El Paso, Texas, which happens to be the safest city in the 
United States today.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment that 
does not solve any problems and, I argue, would make some of the 
security issues that we already have worse.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, the first thing is that this amendment 
does not include the MQ-9 Reaper that the gentleman mentioned. It does 
not make a preference for that. I also take exception to the ``hatred'' 
comment that was made here.
  Look, the border security in the United States has issues. The Border 
Patrol says we need to help find those illegal gangs that are coming 
into the United States. This is not about the surveillance of Americans 
and spying on Americans. It is on the border.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Cuellar), who represents part of the Texas border, the city of Laredo.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I do support Mr. Poe's amendment.
  With all due respect to my good friend, we do want to secure the 
border. We just want to do it in the right way.
  While some people are talking about securing the border with a wall--
a 14th century solution--I think if we use the aerostats, we can 
provide coverage and surveillance to make sure that we secure the 
border. In fact, in south Texas, including in my district, we have five 
of those aerostats right now. The communities support them. The Border 
Patrol certainly supports them. In fact, in appropriations, I am asking 
for five new aerostats so we can go ahead and secure the border. Each 
aerostat covers about 20 miles. So if you want to cover the border--
1,954 miles of border--divided by 20, with about 97 or 98 aerostats, 
minus the 5 that we already have in place, we will secure the border in 
an electronic way.
  This also helps us secure the border on the Mexico side. In talking 
to the Border Patrol, they have used some of that information because 
they can go 20 miles into Mexico, and already we have coordinated some 
of those activities with the Mexican law enforcement officials to stop 
those drug gangs before they come over to the U.S. You turn the camera 
20 miles into Mexico, and with about 97 aerostats, we can secure the 
whole border.
  Again, I support this amendment, and I thank the gentleman very much 
for yielding.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I inquire as to how much time remains on my 
side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Poe amendment.
  This amendment would expand the military's authority under the 1033 
program to flood our streets with surplus battle-ready military 
equipment straight from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Specifically, this amendment would allow the Defense Department to 
transfer equipment, such as the MQ-9 Reaper drone, to Federal and State 
law enforcement agencies. This is a cynical attack, cloaked in the name 
of border security on President Obama's executive order, that limits 
the proliferation of military equipment within the borders of America.
  Typically, the 1033 program feeds more than $4.3 billion in surplus 
military grade weaponry, including armored vehicles and tanks, into the 
United States annually. Now we have Republicans looking to expand the 
type of weaponry that is distributed to law enforcement under the 1033 
program to include military drones.
  While border security should remain at the forefront of our political 
discourse, the use of Grim Reaper drones and other military equipment 
to track and hunt down human beings is not the answer. An increase in 
manpower, training and facilities, not MQ-9 Reapers, is the way that we 
should go about our efforts in protecting our borders without 
sacrificing our values of respect for basic human rights and dignity.
  Moreover, allowing military equipment, such as predator drones, into 
America's airspace puts Americans at risk. Federal agencies have 
already lost hundreds of guns and grenade launchers that have been 
donated to police departments, and many of these weapons have shown up 
for sale on eBay or have been reported stolen. I don't want to see this 
happen with equipment, such as military drones, being doled out to 
border security.

[[Page H2687]]

  Further, the militarization of our State and Federal border security 
agencies will make the border more volatile and not safe. Therefore, I 
rise in opposition, and I ask my colleagues to support me in my 
opposition.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, how much time remains on my side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Texas says that the MQ-9 
Reaper is not specifically addressed in this amendment. However, UAVs 
are--unmanned aerial vehicles--and the MQ-9 is one of them.
  The point that I am trying to make is that we do not need to further 
militarize the border at a time when it is safer than it has ever been 
and when, in fact, U.S. cities on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico 
border are far safer than the average city in the interior of this 
country. If we need to send surplus military equipment elsewhere, let 
it be prioritized based on need, based on known threat. When we send 
security resources where we don't have proven threats, we take them 
away from where we do. That makes this country less safe.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The government already has a plan to send excess equipment to law 
enforcement. What this bill does is prioritize that equipment to the 
Border Patrol. For those concerned about national spying that takes 
place in the United States, which they claim, they would support this 
because its priority is to the border. It is not to other agencies.
  The gentleman from Laredo said it best. Mr. Chair, believe it or not, 
we cooperate with the Mexican Government, and they get information from 
us when we use those aerostats over the border, and they capture the 
bad guys before they come into the United States.
  We need to support this amendment, prioritize it, and give them the 
equipment that they need.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman 
from Texas will be postponed.


         Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 462, after line 13, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DESTRUCTION 
                   OF CERTAIN LANDMINES AND REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT 
                   OF REPLACEMENT ANTI-PERSONNEL LANDMINE 
                   MUNITIONS.

       (a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none 
     of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or 
     otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 for the 
     Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the 
     destruction of anti-personnel landmine munitions before the 
     date on which the Secretary of Defense submits the report 
     required by subsection (c).
       (b) Exception for Safety.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     to any anti-personnel landmine munitions that the Secretary 
     determines are unsafe or could pose a safety risk if not 
     demilitarized or destroyed.
       (c) Report Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the Congress a report that includes the following:
       (A) An assessment of the current state of research into 
     operational alternatives to anti-personnel landmines.
       (B) Any other matter that the Secretary determines should 
     be included in the report.
       (2) Form of report.--The report required by paragraph (1) 
     shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a 
     classified annex.
       (d) Anti-personnel Landmine Munitions Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``anti-personnel landmine munitions'' 
     includes anti-personnel landmines and sub-munitions as 
     defined by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, 
     Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines 
     and on their Destruction, as determined by the Secretary.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of 
amendment No. 16, to prohibit the use of funds to dismantle the U.S. 
stockpile of anti-personnel landmines, APLs, unless the Secretary of 
Defense submits a report to Congress on the operational alternatives to 
APLs.
  Further, my amendment contains an exception for the destruction of 
APLs that would be unsafe to store. This amendment would effectively 
renew the ban that was passed by the full Congress and signed into law 
by the President in Public Law No. 114-92, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
  Mr. Chair, our military commanders have spoken clearly regarding the 
value and the need for APLs. On March 6, 2014, the United States' 
highest ranking military officer, Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, called anti-personnel landmines an important 
tool in the arsenal of the United States.

                              {time}  1745

  When he was head of the U.S. European Command, General Wesley Clark 
agreed, saying that ``our field commanders count on APLs to protect the 
force, influence, maneuver, and shape the battle space, and mass combat 
power for decisive engagement.'' He also added that the need for APLs 
was increasing.
  Furthermore, two major studies, one conducted by the National 
Research Council and the other by NATO, have concluded that APLs 
provide crucial tactical advantages on the battlefield.
  Yet on September 29, 2014, President Obama announced that outside of 
the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. would not use APLs in order to 
``underscore its commitment to the spirit and humanitarian aims of the 
Ottawa Convention.'' The President's actions were, by his own 
admission, taken to move the U.S. towards full compliance with a 
treaty, commonly known as the Ottawa Convention, to which the Senate 
has not given its advice and consent. Moreover, this was created by an 
NGO-led process that openly sought to ``push aside the central feature 
of state sovereignty.''
  The process that created the treaty was bad. The treaty has not been 
approved by the Senate, not signed by the President, and our senior 
military officials state that it would deprive us of an important 
weapon. Yet the Obama administration seeks to move us forward in 
compliance with it.
  The U.S. has taken action on APLs. We give more funding for APL 
clearance than any other nation in the world. We are party to amended 
Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the CCW, 
which requires U.S. APLs to be designed to deactivate or self-destruct.
  Our APLs meet those standards. U.S. APLs are not killing civilians. 
Like all weapons, APLs can be used rightly or wrongly. When used 
responsibly, as U.S. APLs are, they protect our forces, the forces of 
our allies, and civilians alike.
  Landmine opponents, like the administration, state that the Ottawa 
Convention ``shows our leadership'' and that it is reducing the threat 
of landmines around the world. That is simply not true. Many IEDs, 
legally speaking, are APLs. From February 2015 to January 2016, the 
Pentagon's own Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Agency recorded over 
50,000 worldwide casualties as a result of IED attacks.
  The Ottawa Convention isn't solving the landmine problem; it is 
simply disarming the good guys. In this environment, we need weapons 
that can protect camps, cities, roads, and bases

[[Page H2688]]

from insurgent attack. Today, one of those weapons is the APL.
  Unless we have an alternative to APLs that is equal to or better than 
APLs at keeping our troops safe, we should not, and dare not, get rid 
of our stockpile of APLs. The safety of our sons and daughters in 
uniform is of the utmost importance.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and his staff for 
working with my office on this important issue.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I oppose this amendment because it restricts, the President 
restricts, the Department of Defense from taking actions that they feel 
are necessary in the best interest of the national security of our 
country by prohibiting their ability to get rid of the landmines that 
they wish to get rid of.
  The problem with landmines and the reason there was such an 
international outcry is, after conflicts, they tend to be left in the 
areas of conflict; and throughout the world, many innocents have wound 
up being killed by these landmines that are left over. They are a 
weapon that can indiscriminately hit civilians.
  I think the IED example is an excellent example of how pernicious 
these weapons are. They do attack, indiscriminately, civilians and 
military personnel alike.
  What the President is attempting to do is to get us to the point we 
are in compliance with the treaty that was reached. It has not been 
confirmed by the Senate, that is true. But as Commander in Chief, the 
President has the authority to decide what weapons we should or should 
not have.
  And it is important that they do maintain the exception of Korea, 
where we have the very specific threat from North Korea, to make sure 
that we preserve that option. Outside of that, the President and our 
commanders at the Department of Defense have determined that this 
option is not one that we need to provide for national security, and it 
is one that the international community has condemned.
  We have had attempts--the Geneva Convention and others--at limiting 
the carnage given by warfare. One of the ways to limit that would be to 
limit the amount of landmines that are available. That is what the 
President is attempting to do. This amendment, I believe, would 
unfairly restrict him in his ability to do that. He has the ability, as 
Commander in Chief, to make those decisions in consultation with the 
DOD. This restricts him in a way that I do not support, and I urge this 
body to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman's 
opinion. I understand the President is the Commander in Chief, but I 
also understand that the APLs, the ones that we use, protect our 
forces, our friends, and our allies.
  As far as the danger of them, we lead on landmine clearance, and we 
have lived up to all the international obligations we have accepted. 
The landmine ban treaty disarms us, not our enemies. Dismantling our 
APLs is not showing leadership. Instead, it would be the height of 
irresponsibility.
  I know that sometimes in this House we get to the point where 
politics takes precedence over policy. If, at the end of the day, this 
House can't do everything possible to protect our daughters and sons in 
uniform and our allies and friends around the world--we are the most 
responsible user of APLs. We are doing more than anybody else to disarm 
IEDs.
  The problem comes down to where does the United States stand. We need 
to stand, and we need to be resolute behind our Armed Forces. That is 
why I stand strong on this amendment.
  Make sure the APLs stay in place.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  We are going to make the responsible decisions about what is best to 
protect our Armed Forces, and I believe the President will do that. 
This restricts him in one specific area that has not been shown--yes, 
we are the most responsible users of landmines, but that is not exactly 
a high bar to jump over. No matter how you use them, no matter where 
you use them--yes, we are trying to clear them, and I think that is 
great. But if we didn't put them out there in the first place, we 
wouldn't have to worry about, then, going in there and clearing them.
  What has been determined by the Department of Defense and by the 
President is that there are other, better ways to protect our troops 
that do not unnecessarily endanger civilian populations. That is why 
the President is going down the path that he is going down. I think he 
is right to do it, and I think we should reject this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mrs. Walorski

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title X, add the following:

     SEC. 10__. REQUIREMENT FOR MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 
                   REGARDING TRANSFER OF DETAINEES.

       Section 1034(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 129 Stat. 969; 10 
     U.S.C. 801 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking the period and inserting ``; and'' at the 
     end of paragraph (4); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) the United States Government and the government of 
     the foreign country have entered into a written memorandum of 
     understanding regarding the transfer of the individual and 
     such memorandum of understanding has previously been 
     transmitted to the appropriate committees of Congress.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentlewoman 
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment is very common sense. It is as simple in its concept as 
it is in requirements. My amendment simply increases the transparency 
and accountability surrounding transfers from Guantanamo Bay by 
requiring the U.S. and the foreign government receiving the detainee to 
sign a written memo of understanding outlining the terms of the 
transfer and to provide copies of that memo to Congress. These 
transfers are too significant and the stakes are too high for a simple 
handshake or verbal agreement.
  As Paul Lewis, the President's own Special Envoy for Guantanamo 
Detention Closure, recently confirmed, detainees that were released 
have returned to the battlefield and killed Americans. The 
administration, itself, estimates the recidivism rate of detainees at 
nearly one out of three.
  In my 4 years on the Armed Services Committee, I have consistently 
been disappointed by the lack of transparency surrounding these 
transfers. In its plan for closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention 
facility that was released in February, the administration insisted it 
received security assurances and humane treatment assurances from 
countries receiving detainees. This includes travel restrictions, 
monitoring, and information sharing. However, in December last year, 
reports began surfacing that a detainee who was released to Sudan in 
July 2012 was now in Yemen operating as a senior leader of al Qaeda in 
the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP.
  Setting aside the fact that a dangerous terrorist was transferred to 
Sudan in the first place, a state sponsor of terrorism, I requested a 
classified briefing to find out exactly what type of assurances the 
administration received from the Sudanese Government that they would 
keep an eye on this detainee and what punitive measures they took 
against the Sudanese

[[Page H2689]]

when it was discovered they let him out of their sight. Mr. Chairman, I 
came away from that briefing with more questions than answers.
  That is why I am offering this amendment today. A written memo of 
understanding between the U.S. and the foreign country receiving the 
detainee will provide a greater degree of transparency and 
accountability than exists right now.
  Mr. Chairman, one American casualty is too many. We must do more to 
ensure that every precaution is taken if and when individuals are 
transferred from GTMO. By providing this memo to the relevant oversight 
committees of this body, we take one more step toward real 
accountability for both the administration and for the foreign nation 
accepting these detainees.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke) for his 
cosponsorship. I would also like to commend the Senator from Arkansas 
(Mr. Cotton) for his work in offering this same requirement in the 
Senate bill.
  I include in the Record the letters I sent to the administration 
requesting information on the transfer of detainees, which are the 
basis for this amendment.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, December 15, 2015.
     President Barack Obama,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Obama:  I write with grave concerns about 
     statements you made regarding the detention facility at 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba during a recent interview with Yahoo 
     News. In particular, I was troubled by your comments on 
     recidivism and on the process for selecting detainees for 
     release.
       In the interview, you said of released detainees re-
     entering the fight: ``Out of four-, five-, six-hundred people 
     that get released.. .a handful of them are going to be 
     embittered and still engaging in anti-US activities.'' 
     However, the Director of National Intelligence identified 196 
     former detainees as either being confirmed or suspected of 
     returning to the battlefield in its September 2015 Report on 
     the Reengagement of Detainees Formerly Held at Guantanamo 
     Bay, Cuba. That's a recidivism rate over 30 percent--this is 
     hardly a handful.
       At the heart of the issue, however, is not the rate of 
     recidivism, but rather its intensity. One of the 196 is 
     Ibrahim al-Qosi. He was released in July 2012 to his home 
     country of Sudan, a country designated as a State Sponsor of 
     Terrorism by the State Department. Since his release, he has 
     become a senior leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula 
     (AQAP), which took credit for the attack on Charlie Hebdo in 
     Paris in January 2015. A month later, Vincent Stewart, the 
     Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified before 
     Congress that AQAP ``remains committed to attacking the 
     West.'' We may disagree over what constitutes a handful, but 
     we cannot underestimate the difference another set of hands 
     can mean to these terrorist organizations.
       The fact that al-Qosi was released to live in a US 
     government-designated State Sponsor of Terrorism is troubling 
     enough, but comments you made in the interview concerning the 
     release vetting process prompts more questions than it 
     answers. On that topic, you said:
       ``The judgment that we're continually making is: are there 
     individuals [in Guantanamo] who are significantly more 
     dangerous than the people who are already out there who are 
     fighting? What do they add? Do they have special skills? Do 
     they have special knowledge that ends up making them a 
     significant threat to the United States?''
       Accordingly, I would like to request a classified briefing 
     on how the administration has been evaluating the remaining 
     detainees for release. Specifically, I would like the 
     briefing to address:
       1. What criteria, quantifiable or otherwise, are used to 
     determine if a detainee is more or less dangerous than those 
     currently on the battlefield
       2. The groups or specific individuals currently on the 
     battlefield that detainees are being compared to in order to 
     make those determinations
       a. If the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or its 
     leaders are part of this set, please also detail how the 
     weight given to the threat they pose has changed since 
     January 2014
       3. Flow the special skills and knowledge are defined and 
     quantified
       4. Any additional scrutiny given to detainees being 
     released to State Sponsors of Terror
       It is disturbing that your administration seems to continue 
     underestimating the danger posed by former Guantanamo 
     detainees returning to the fight. One more terrorist on the 
     battlefield is too many because one more terrorist can be all 
     it takes to cause more death and destruction. I strongly urge 
     you to reconsider such consistent downplaying of this threat 
     and I look forward to your timely response.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Jackie Walorski,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, March 1, 2016.
     President Barack Obama,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Obama: I am writing to follow up on a letter 
     I sent on December 15, 2015 regarding your policy on the 
     detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and questions 
     surrounding the problem of recidivism. I am extremely 
     disappointed that, two-and-a-half months later, I have not 
     received any response. I am also troubled by the lack of 
     detail in your recent Plan for Closing the Guantanamo Bay 
     Detention Facility released last week, which provided no 
     clarity on the issues raised in the letter either.
       Last week alone, Hamed Abderrahaman Ahmed, a former 
     detainee that was transferred to Spain, was arrested on 
     Tuesday, February 23 for recruiting fighters for the Islamic 
     State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Two days later, Ibrahim al-
     Qosi, a former detainee that was transferred to Sudan, 
     released a message on Thursday encouraging jihad in Somalia. 
     He had also urged his followers to carry out attacks on New 
     Years Eve celebrations, particularly in New York City and 
     Paris. Recidivism is clearly a very real issue, but seems to 
     be underestimated by your administration.
       In my December 15 letter, I had specifically raised the 
     case of Ibrahim al-Qosi who is now a senior leader of al 
     Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which took credit for 
     the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris in January 2015. He was 
     also, curiously, transferred to a country that is designated 
     as a State Sponsor of Terrorism by the U.S. State Department.
       The recently-released Plan for Closing the Guantanamo Bay 
     Detention Facility states that the U.S. government obtains 
     security assurances and humane treatment assurances from a 
     country before transferring a detainee. Among the security 
     assurances are restrictions on travel, monitoring of the 
     detainee, and periodic information sharing. However, al-Qosi 
     is currently operating out of Yemen. Obviously, there was a 
     breakdown in these security assurances.
       Thus, I want to reiterate my request for a classified 
     briefing that covers the questions raised in my December 15 
     letter, which I am enclosing. I would also like the briefing 
     to address these additional questions:
       1. Security assurances your administration received from 
     the government of Sudan before the transfer of Ibrahim al-
     Qosi
       2. The frequency and type of monitoring agreed to by the 
     government of Sudan on Ibrahim al-Qosi and measures taken by 
     the U.S. government to verify that this monitoring was taking 
     place
       3. The frequency and type of information shared by the 
     government of Sudan on Ibrahim alQosi, his whereabouts, and 
     his activities after his transfer
       4. The date that the government of Sudan informed the U.S. 
     government that Ibrahim alQosi was no longer in Sudan
       5. Any punitive measures taken against the government of 
     Sudan or members of the government in connection with its 
     failure to live up to its commitments regarding the transfer 
     of Ibrahim al-Qosi
       6. Humane treatment assurances your administration received 
     from the government of Sudan, whose head of state, Omar al-
     Bashir, has an arrest warrant pending with the International 
     Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, 
     before the transfer of Ibrahim al-Qosi
       7. Questions 1, 2, 3, and 6 as they pertain to the two 
     other detainees your administration transferred to Sudan: 
     Noor Uthman Muhammed and Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris
       8. Questions 4 and 5 as they pertain to Noor Uthman 
     Muhammed and Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris if they are no 
     longer in Sudan
       9. Any extra security and humane treatment assurances your 
     administration seeks from countries that are on the U.S. 
     State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism
       10. Any ongoing negotiations with the governments of Iran 
     and Sudan regarding future transfer of Guantanamo detainees
       Transferring Guantanamo detainees--known terrorists--to 
     countries that are State Sponsors of Terrorism is an 
     incredibly dangerous and misguided policy. No reasonable 
     person should trust these governments to follow through on 
     any promises they make to ensure detainees do not rejoin the 
     battle. I strongly urge you not to complete any future 
     transfers to these countries and I look forward to your 
     timely response to my request for a briefing.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Jackie Walorski,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There are 80 detainees left at Guantanamo. A number have been 
transferred. Of those 80, I could be wrong, but I believe it is 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 34 of them have been cleared for 
transfer, basically deemed not to be

[[Page H2690]]

risks to the United States. Restricting their ability to be transferred 
simply drives up the cost of Guantanamo unnecessarily.
  We have transferred a great many detainees out of Guantanamo. The 
statistics cited go all the way back to the Bush administration when, 
regrettably, we did let people go without proper vetting.
  We, through this bill, in past years, have put a number of provisions 
in place that require national security certifications that the people 
being transferred are not a risk to the United States. That is already 
required. This simply makes it more difficult to do that for no good 
reason.
  The recidivism in recent years has been drastically lower. It has 
been less than 10 percent, nowhere near the 33 percent figure cited. 
And the ones that are left to be transferred, like I said, are ones 
that have been determined not to be a risk.
  Now, we take our time in transferring these people to make sure that 
we have a place to transfer them, that it is safe and secure, willing 
to accept them and all of that. There are already multiple provisions 
in law to try and make sure that we don't take any chances.
  Unfortunately, when you release people, there are always risks; but 
detaining people forever without charge and after you have determined 
that they are not a risk is also a risk. Basically, it goes against the 
very values of the United States of America. We could just never 
release anyone from prison in the United States under these standards, 
under the fact that, well, they might commit another crime. And they 
might. So why don't we just lock them up forever?
  We have a process, a very careful process, that has been worked out 
in a bipartisan fashion to determine who needs to be held and who can 
be released. Then, after we determine they can be released, even then, 
we go through a process of where they are released to and work with the 
host country and try to determine what the best and safest available 
alternative is. This piles on to the bureaucracy and makes it more 
difficult to do transfers that are in the best interest of the national 
security of our country.
  I oppose the amendment for those reasons.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Zinke), a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chair, well, how soon we forget why they are there. 
How soon we forget.
  Why are they there? Go to New York and look at the names engraved of 
the ladder men, the commercial pilots, the innocent.
  I did a lot to put them there. I don't remember reading Miranda 
rights or warrants. Yet some people want to bring them back to the 
United States under U.S. law where rules of evidence and Miranda rights 
would apply. Yet that is ignored.
  Now we are asking for tighter controls overseas because one-third go 
back to the battlefield. Is it a risk we should incur? The answer is 
no. Why? Because what is left is the bottom. These are the guys that 
are not hanging around evil. These are the guys that are evil. They are 
absolutely evil, and we have seen it.
  So putting more controls, more restrictions to protect American lives 
is what we must do in Congress. This is not a Democratic or Republican 
issue. This is an American issue.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I think that is the question: Why are they there? In the case of 26 
of them, they are there because mistakes were made in picking them up. 
This happened with many people at Guantanamo, particularly in the early 
days, and these people have been there for a long time, where we 
basically weren't taking any chances on whom we picked up. We threw out 
a wide net and brought people in.
  Now, there are estimated to be 44 of the folks there who are the 
baddest of the bad, who we have direct connections to active terrorism, 
who we know are a threat to the United States of America, and I am not 
proposing whatsoever that we should release those.
  But the question of why are they there is absolutely right, and it is 
not for the reasons that the previous gentleman stated in the cases of 
at least 26 of these inmates. They are there through a combination of 
mistakes, misidentification, misinformation, many different reasons why 
they were picked up, and the problem is, now: How do we transfer them 
out? How do we find a home country to send them to?
  I totally agree, if you are talking about incredibly dangerous people 
who have done what the previous speaker said, we have got to keep those 
people to protect America, but that is not the case with some of the 
inmates at Guantanamo. That is why we have been working to return these 
inmates to countries where they can be safely returned.
  It is not everybody at Guantanamo who falls into that category. That 
is the reason I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Indiana has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I guess in answer to the questions that 
have been asked here, again, back to the fact that I think this is a 
very commonsense amendment, this is talking about transparency and 
accountability.
  How did a detainee go from Sudan to Yemen? Because the rules are too 
loose.
  Let's just bring accountability and transparency into this issue so 
the American people can see and so there is some accountability in this 
country on where these people end up.
  These are the worst of the worst. They have American blood on their 
hands. The ones we are talking about from this point forward continue 
to have unbelievable issues, unbelievably dangerous criminal attached 
to their title. I am just simply asking for accountability and 
transparency.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. Thornberry

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 732, I 
offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 3 consisting of amendment Nos. 22, 24, 39, 40, 
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, and 50 printed in part B of House 
Report No. 114-569, offered by Mr. Thornberry:


             amendment no. 22 offered by mr. turner of ohio

       At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12XX. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON JULY 2016 NATO SUMMIT IN 
                   WARSAW, POLAND.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been 
     the cornerstone of transatlantic security cooperation and an 
     enduring instrument for promoting stability in Europe and 
     around the world for over 65 years.
       (2) NATO currently faces a range of evolving security 
     challenges, including Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, 
     and instability and conflict in the Middle East and North 
     Africa. In the face of these varied challenges, NATO must 
     deter threats and, if necessary, defend NATO member states 
     against adversaries.
       (3) Since NATO's 2014 summit in Wales, NATO member states 
     have made progress in implementing a Readiness Action Plan to 
     enhance allied readiness and collective defense in response 
     to Russian aggression. However, much work remains to be done.
       (4) NATO's solidarity is strengthened by the bolstering of 
     NATO's conventional and nuclear deterrence, increased defense 
     spending by NATO member states, and continued enlargement of 
     the Alliance.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) at the July 2016 NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland and 
     beyond, the United States should--
       (A) welcome Montenegro's accession to NATO;
       (B) continue to work with aspirant countries to prepare 
     them for entry into NATO;
       (C) continue supporting a Membership Action Plan (MAP) for 
     Georgia;
       (D) encourage the leaders of Macedonia and Greece to find a 
     mutually agreeable solution to the name dispute between the 
     two countries;
       (E) seek a Dayton II agreement to resolve the 
     constitutional issues of Bosnia and Herzegovina;

[[Page H2691]]

       (F) work with the Republic of Kosovo to prepare the country 
     for entrance into the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program;
       (G) take a leading role in working with NATO member states 
     to identify, through consensus, the current and future 
     security threats facing the Alliance; and
       (H) take a leading role to work with other NATO member 
     states to ensure the alliance maintains the required 
     capabilities, including the gains in interoperability from 
     combat in Afghanistan, necessary to meet the security threats 
     to the Alliance;
       (2) in Warsaw, NATO member states should build upon the 
     progress made since the 2014 Wales Summit, by committing 
     additional resources to NATO's Readiness Action Plan and 
     related measures to enhance allied readiness and deterrence;
       (3) NATO member states should review defense spending to 
     ensure sufficient funding is obligated to meet NATO 
     responsibilities, including to allocate at least 2 percent of 
     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defense spending, and to 
     devote at least 20 percent of defense spending to defense 
     modernization and new equipment;
       (4) the United States should commit to maintaining a robust 
     military presence in Europe as a means of promoting allied 
     interoperability, providing visible assurance to NATO allies, 
     and deterring Russian aggression in the region; and
       (5) the United States reaffirms and remains committed to 
     the policies enumerated by NATO member states in the 
     Deterrence and Defense Posture Review, dated May 20, 2012, 
     and the Wales Summit Declaration of September 2014, including 
     the following statement: ``Deterrence, based on an 
     appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional, and missile defence 
     capabilities, remains a core element of our overall 
     strategy.''.


           amendment no. 24 offered by mr. hanna of new york

       In the table of contents for bill, insert after the item 
     pertaining to section 1867 the following:

Sec. 1868. Role of small business development centers in cyber security 
              and preparedness.
Sec. 1869. Additional cyber security assistance for small business 
              development centers.
Sec. 1870. Cybersecurity outreach for small business development 
              centers.
Sec. 1871. GAO study on small business cyber support services and small 
              business development center cyber strategy.
Sec. 1872. Prohibition on additional funds.

       Page 832, insert after line 5 the following:

     SEC. 1868. ROLE OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS IN 
                   CYBER SECURITY AND PREPAREDNESS.

       Section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``and providing 
     access to business analysts who can refer small business 
     concerns to available experts:'' and inserting ``providing 
     access to business analysts who can refer small business 
     concerns to available experts; and, to the extent 
     practicable, providing assistance in furtherance of the Small 
     Business Development Center Cyber Strategy developed under 
     section 1871(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2017:''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end of the following:
       ``(G) access to cyber security specialists to counsel, 
     assist, and inform small business concern clients, in 
     furtherance of the Small Business Development Center Cyber 
     Strategy developed under section .''.

     SEC. 1869. ADDITIONAL CYBER SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL 
                   BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.

       Section 21(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Cyber security assistance.--The Department of 
     Homeland Security, and any other Federal department or agency 
     in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, may 
     provide assistance to small business development centers, 
     through the dissemination of cybersecurity risk information 
     and other homeland security information, to help small 
     business concerns in developing or enhancing cyber security 
     infrastructure, cyber threat awareness, and cyber training 
     programs for employees.''.

     SEC. 1870. CYBERSECURITY OUTREACH FOR SMALL BUSINESS 
                   DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.

       Section 227 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     148) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (l) as subsection (m); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (k) the following:
       ``(l) Cybersecurity Outreach.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide assistance to 
     small business development centers, through the dissemination 
     of cybersecurity risk information and other homeland security 
     information, to help small business concerns in developing or 
     enhancing cyber security infrastructure, cyber threat 
     awareness, and cyber training programs for employees.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     terms `small business concern' and `small business 
     development center' have the meaning given such terms, 
     respectively, under section 3 of the Small Business Act.''.

     SEC. 1871. GAO STUDY ON SMALL BUSINESS CYBER SUPPORT SERVICES 
                   AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER CYBER 
                   STRATEGY.

       (a) Review of Current Cyber Security Resources.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a review of current cyber security 
     resources at the Federal level aimed at assisting small 
     business concerns with developing or enhancing cyber security 
     infrastructure, cyber threat awareness, or cyber training 
     programs for employees.
       (2) Content.--The review required under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) An accounting and description of all Federal Government 
     programs, projects, and activities that currently provide 
     assistance to small business concerns in developing or 
     enhancing cyber security infrastructure, cyber threat 
     awareness, or cyber training programs for employees.
       (B) An assessment of how widely utilized the resources 
     described under subparagraph (A) are by small business 
     concerns and a review of whether or not such resources are 
     duplicative of other programs and structured in a manner that 
     makes them accessible to and supportive of small business 
     concerns.
       (3) Report.--The Comptroller General shall issue a report 
     to the Congress, the Small Business Administrator, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, and any association 
     recognized under section 21(a)(3)(A) of the Small Business 
     Act containing all findings and determinations made in 
     carrying out the review required under paragraph (1).
       (b) Small Business Development Center Cyber Strategy.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the issuance 
     of the report under subsection (a)(3), the Small Business 
     Administrator and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     work collaboratively to develop a Small Business Development 
     Center Cyber Strategy.
       (2) Consultation.--In developing the strategy under this 
     subsection, the Small Business Administrator and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with entities 
     representing the concerns of small business development 
     centers, including any association recognized under section 
     21(a)(3)(A) of the Small Business Act.
       (3) Content.--The strategy required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include, at minimum, the following:
       (A) Plans for incorporating small business development 
     centers (hereinafter in this section referred to as 
     ``SBDCs'') into existing cyber programs to enhance services 
     and streamline cyber assistance to small business concerns.
       (B) To the extent practicable, methods for the provision of 
     counsel and assistance to improve a small business concern's 
     cyber security infrastructure, cyber threat awareness, and 
     cyber training programs for employees, including--
       (i) working to ensure individuals are aware of best 
     practices in the areas of cyber security, cyber threat 
     awareness, and cyber training;
       (ii) working with individuals to develop cost-effective 
     plans for implementing best practices in these areas;
       (iii) entering into agreements, where practical, with 
     Information Sharing and Analysis Centers or similar cyber 
     information sharing entities to gain an awareness of 
     actionable threat information that may be beneficial to small 
     business concerns; and
       (iv) providing referrals to area specialists when 
     necessary.
       (C) An analysis of--
       (i) how Federal Government programs, projects, and 
     activities identified by the Comptroller General in the 
     report issued under subsection (a)(1) can be leveraged by 
     SBDCs to improve access to high-quality cyber support for 
     small business concerns;
       (ii) additional resources SBDCs may need to effectively 
     carry out their role; and
       (iii) how SBDCs can leverage existing partnerships and 
     develop new ones with Federal, State, and local government 
     entities as well as private entities to improve the quality 
     of cyber support services to small business concerns.
       (4) Delivery of strategy.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the issuance of the report under subsection (a)(3), the Small 
     Business Development Center Cyber Strategy shall be issued to 
     the Committees on Homeland Security and Small Business of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committees on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs and Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate.

     SEC. 1872. PROHIBITION ON ADDITIONAL FUNDS.

       No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out sections 1868 through 1871 or the amendments made 
     by such sections.


           amendment no. 39 offered by mr. bera of california

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

     SEC. __. REPORT ON AVAILABILITY OF COLLEGE CREDIT FOR SKILLS 
                   ACQUIRED DURING MILITARY SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs, 
     Education, and Labor, shall submit to Congress a report on 
     the transfer of skills into equivalent college credits or 
     technical certifications for members of the Armed Forces

[[Page H2692]]

     leaving the military. Such report shall describe each the 
     following:
       (1) Each skill that may be acquired during military service 
     that is eligible for transfer into an equivalent college 
     credit or technical certification.
       (2) The academic level of the equivalent college credit or 
     technical certification for which each such skill is 
     eligible.
       (3) Each academic institution that awards an equivalent 
     college credit or technical certification for such skills, 
     including--
       (A) whether each such academic institution is public or 
     private and whether such institution is for profit; and
       (B) the number of veterans that applied to such academic 
     institutions who were able to receive equivalent college 
     credits or technical certifications in the last fiscal year, 
     and the academic level of the credits or certifications.
       (4) The number of members of the Armed Forces who left the 
     military in the last fiscal year and the number of those 
     individuals who met with an academic or technical training 
     advisor as part of their participation in the Transition 
     Assistance Program.


        amendment no. 40 offered by mr. mcgovern of massachuetts

         Page 173, after line 2, add the following new section:

     SEC. 599A. ATOMIC VETERANS SERVICE MEDAL.

       (a) Service Medal Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     design and produce a military service medal, to be known as 
     the ``Atomic Veterans Service Medal'', to honor retired and 
     former members of the Armed Forces who are radiation-exposed 
     veterans (as such term is defined in section 1112(c)(3) of 
     title 38, United States Code).
       (b) Distribution of Medal.--
       (1) Issuance to retired and former members.--At the request 
     of a radiation-exposed veteran, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall issue the Atomic Veterans Service Medal to the veteran.
       (2) Issuance to next-of-kin.--In the case of a radiation-
     exposed veteran who is deceased, the Secretary may provide 
     for issuance of the Atomic Veterans Service Medal to the 
     next-of-kin of the person.
       (3) Application.--The Secretary shall prepare and 
     disseminate as appropriate an application by which radiation-
     exposed veterans and their next-of-kin may apply to receive 
     the Atomic Veterans Service Medal.


           amendment no. 41 offered by mr. grayson of florida

       Page 243, strike lines 14 and 15 and insert the following:
     ``chapter--
       ``(A) in a more effective, efficient, or economical manner; 
     and
       ``(B) at a level of quality at least comparable to the 
     quality of services beneficiaries would receive from a 
     military medical treatment facility; or''


            amendment no. 42 offered by mr. carter of texas

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

     SEC. 7__. USE OF MEFLOQUINE FOR MALARIA.

       (a) Mefloquine.--In providing health care to members of the 
     Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense shall require--
       (1) that the use of mefloquine for the prophylaxis of 
     malaria be limited to members with intolerance or 
     contraindications to other chemoprophylaxis;
       (2) that mefloquine be prescribed by a licensed medical 
     provider on an individual basis, and
       (3) that members prescribed mefloquine for malaria 
     prophylaxis be counseled by the medical provider about the 
     potential side effects of the drug and be provided the Food 
     and Drug Administration-required patient information 
     handouts.
       (b) Process and Review.--
       (1) Process.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, in providing health care to members of 
     the Armed Forces, the Secretary shall develop a standardized 
     process to document the screening for contraindications and 
     patient education, including a prior authorization form, to 
     be used by all medical providers prescribing mefloquine for 
     malaria prophylaxis.
       (2) Annual review.--The Secretary shall conduct an annual 
     review of each mefloquine prescription at all military 
     medical treatment facilities to evaluate the documentation of 
     the assessment for contraindications, justification for not 
     using other chemoprophylaxis, and patient education for the 
     safe use of mefloquine and its side effects.
       (c) Adverse Health Effects of Mefloquine.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall expand the missions of the Hearing Center of 
     Excellence, the Vision Center of Excellence, the Defense 
     Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic 
     Brain Injury (including the Deployment Health Clinical 
     Center), and the Center for Deployment Health Research to 
     include, as appropriate, improving the clinical evaluation, 
     diagnosis, management, and epidemiological study of adverse 
     health effects among members of the Armed Forces following 
     exposure to mefloquine.


        amendment no. 43 offered by mr. wilson of south carolina

       Section 825 is amended by inserting at the end of 
     subsection (f) (page 304, after line 12) the following:
       (3) Termination of report requirement.--The requirement to 
     submit a report under this subsection shall terminate on the 
     date occurring five years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.


        amendment no. 44 offered by mr. wilson of south carolina

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

     SEC. 843. REVISION OF EFFECTIVE DATE FOR AMENDMENTS RELATING 
                   TO UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR BUSINESS 
                   MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION.

       Section 901(a)(1) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' 
     Mckeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3462; 10 U.S.C. 132a 
     note) is amended by striking ``February 1, 2017'' and 
     inserting ``February 1, 2018''.


           amendment no. 45 offered by mr. beyer of virginia

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

     SEC. 843. PROMOTION OF VALUE-BASED DEFENSE PROCUREMENT.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the 
     Department of Defense to avoid using lowest price technically 
     acceptable source selection criteria in inappropriate 
     circumstances that potentially deny the Department the 
     benefits of cost and technical tradeoffs in the source 
     selection process.
       (b) Requirement for Solicitations.--For new solicitations 
     issued on or after the date that is 120 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, lowest price technically 
     acceptable source selection criteria shall be used only in 
     situations in which--
       (1) the Department of Defense is able to comprehensively 
     and clearly describe the minimum requirements expressed in 
     term of performance objectives, measures, and standards that 
     will be used to determine acceptability of offers;
       (2) the Department would realize no, or minimal, value from 
     a contract proposal exceeding the minimum technical or 
     performance requirements set forth in the request for 
     proposal;
       (3) the proposed technical approaches will require no, or 
     minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection 
     authority as to the desirability of one offeror's proposal 
     versus a competing proposal;
       (4) a review of technical proposals of offerors other than 
     the lowest bidder would result in no, or minimal, benefit to 
     the Department; and
       (5) the contracting officer has included a justification 
     for the use of a lowest price technically acceptable 
     evaluation methodology in the contract file, if the contract 
     to be awarded is predominately for the acquisition of 
     information technology services, systems engineering and 
     technical assistance services, or other knowledge-based 
     professional services.
       (c) Avoidance of Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable 
     Source Selection Criteria in Procurements of Information 
     Technology and Auditing.--To the maximum extent practicable, 
     the use of lowest price technically acceptable source 
     selection criteria shall be avoided when the procurement is 
     predominately for the acquisition of information technology 
     services, systems engineering and technical assistance 
     services, audit or audit readiness services, or other 
     knowledge-based professional services.
       (d) Reporting.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for 3 
     years, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the number of 
     instances in which lowest-price technically acceptable source 
     selection criteria is used, including an explanation of how 
     the criteria was considered when making a determination to 
     use lowest price technically acceptable source selection 
     criteria.


            amendment no. 46 offered by mr. burgess of texas

       At the end of subtitle A of title X (page 370, after line 
     17), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1003. REPORT ON AUDITABLE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report ranking all 
     military departments and Defense Agencies in order of how 
     advanced they are in achieving auditable financial statements 
     as required by law. The report should not include information 
     otherwise available in other reports to Congress.


             amendment no. 47 offered by mr. turner of ohio

       Add at the end of subtitle F of title X the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 10__. BRIEFING ON CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LOCATIONS OF 
                   AIR FORCE INSTALLATION AND MISSION SUPPORT 
                   CENTER HEADQUARTERS.

       (a) Briefing.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force 
     shall provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services 
     of the House of Representatives on the Department of the Air 
     Force's process and reasoning for using proximity to primary 
     medium commercial hub airports as part of the mission 
     criteria for the Air Force Installation and Mission Support 
     Center headquarters strategic basing process.
       (b) Contents of Briefing.--The briefing under subsection 
     (a) will specifically address the rationale behind the 
     distance categories used to allocate points under this 
     mission criteria referred to in subsection (a), and shall 
     provide references to any existing government guidance that 
     supports use of these distance categories. In addition, the 
     briefing

[[Page H2693]]

     shall include an analysis regarding the reasons why the 
     Department did not consider commuting times as a more 
     equitable way of determining proximity to commercial hub 
     airports that would account for the impact of different 
     traffic conditions across the candidate locations.


           amendment no. 49 offered by ms. frankel of florida

       Page 462, after line 13, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1098. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING AMERICAN VETERANS 
                   DISABLED FOR LIFE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) There are at least 3,600,000 veterans currently living 
     with service-connected disabilities.
       (2) As a result of their service, many veterans are 
     permanently disabled throughout their lives and in many cases 
     must rely on the support of their families and friends when 
     these visible and invisible burdens become too much to bear 
     alone.
       (3) October 5, which is the anniversary of the dedication 
     of the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial, has been 
     recognized as an appropriate day on which to honor American 
     veterans disabled for life each year.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--Congress--
       (1) expresses its appreciation to the men and women left 
     permanently wounded, ill, or injured as a result of their 
     service in the Armed Forces;
       (2) supports the annual recognition of American veterans 
     disabled for life each year; and
       (3) encourages the American people to honor American 
     veterans disabled for life each year with appropriate 
     programs and activities.


           amendment no. 50 offered by mr. beyer of virginia

       Page 462, after line 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 1098. STUDY ON MILITARY HELICOPTER NOISE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense, in coordination 
     with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, shall--
       (1) conduct a study on the effects of military helicopter 
     noise on National Capital Region communities and individuals; 
     and
       (2) develop recommendations for the reduction of the 
     effects of military helicopter noise on individuals, 
     structures, and property values in the National Capital 
     Region.
       (b) Focus.--In conducting the study under subsection (a) , 
     the Secretary and the Administrator shall focus on air 
     traffic control, airspace design, airspace management, and 
     types of aircraft, to address helicopter noise problems and 
     shall take into account the needs of law enforcement, 
     emergency, and military operations.
       (c) Consideration of Views.--In conducting the study under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the views of 
     representatives of--
       (1) members of the Armed Forces;
       (2) law enforcement agencies;
       (3) community stakeholders, including residents and local 
     government officials; and
       (4) organizations with an interest in reducing military 
     helicopter noise.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Availability to the public.--The Secretary shall make 
     the report required under paragraph (1) publicly available.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, each of these amendments in this en 
bloc package has been worked on both sides of the aisle. I believe this 
package deserves Members' support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the chairman from Texas 
for adding my amendment to this en bloc.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment today would require the Defense Department 
and FAA to study the impact of military helicopter noise in the 
national capital region and to develop recommendations to reduce the 
effect of noise on people and property.
  The airspace around Washington, D.C., is more restricted and more 
highly congested than in any other part of the country. On average, 144 
helicopter operations take place here every day, 75 percent of which 
are military, encompassing all types of military aircraft. One recent 
addition to our airspace is the V-22 Osprey, a hybrid helicopter and 
airplane with the width of an 8-story building. It has been deployed to 
war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, rescue missions in Haiti and the San 
Juan Mountains, and now the peaceful communities of northern Virginia.
  As most of my colleagues probably know, the Osprey can transition 
from a turboprop plane to a conventional helicopter, all while hovering 
at a low altitude. This noisy transition takes place directly over the 
Fairlington neighborhood in my district in Arlington, Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, the communities in my district are realistic about the 
noise helicopters generate and are sensitive to the operational needs 
of the military, but the routes and altitude caps dictated by the FAA 
follow best practices for public and private aircraft, not military 
aircraft designed for a conflict zone.
  A total quieting of the skies in northern Virginia is not possible or 
even practical; but given the military's insistence on using such 
heavy, loud aircraft, it is only right that they work with the FAA to 
reexamine the existing route structure and offer some possible 
solutions.
  I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment en bloc.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentleman that I 
have no speakers on this amendment at this point, so I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers at this time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairman for his graciousness.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of the McGovern-Pompeo amendment, which is 
part of this en bloc, to create a medal honoring the service of atomic 
veterans or their surviving family members.
  Between 1945 and 1962, over 200,000 servicemembers conducted hundreds 
of nuclear weapons tests and were exposed to dangerous levels of 
radiation. Sworn to secrecy, they couldn't even tell their doctors.
  Presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush recognized their 
service by providing specialized care and compensation, but this isn't 
enough.
  Joe Mondello, a constituent of mine from Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, 
and other atomic veterans helped bring this issue to my attention. It 
is long past time to honor their service.
  Last year, with the help of the chairman, in the DOD authorization 
bill we included this amendment, but then the Department of Defense 
insisted the Senate remove it. Their explanation? We don't have a medal 
and don't want to create one. Congress should find another way to honor 
these veterans. That is no excuse. In fact, that is insensitive, it is 
dismissive, and it is ungrateful. We should be appalled.
  Tragically, many of these atomic veterans have already died without 
receiving recognition. They kept a code of silence that likely led to 
many of them passing away too soon. We must right this wrong. Support 
this amendment. I urge the Senate to do the same thing.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers.
  I urge adoption of the en bloc package.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


           Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thornberry

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 732, I 
offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 4 consisting of amendment Nos. 48, 51, 52, 53, 
54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and 61 printed in part B of House Report No. 
114-569, offered by Mr. Thornberry:


           amendment no. 48 offered by mr. zeldin of new york

       Page 423, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1070. REPORT ON TESTING AND INTEGRATION OF MINEHUNTING 
                   SONAR SYSTEMS TO IMPROVE LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP 
                   MINEHUNTING CAPABILITIES.

       (a) Report to Congress.--Not later than April 1, 2018, the 
     Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report that contains the findings of an 
     assessment of all operational minehunting Synthetic Aperture 
     Sonar (hereinafter referred to as ``SAS'') technologies 
     suitable to

[[Page H2694]]

     meet the requirements for use on the Littoral Combat Ship 
     Mine Countermeasures Mission Package.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) an explanation of the future acquisition strategy for 
     the minehunting mission package;
       (2) specific details regarding the capabilities of all in-
     production SAS systems available for integration into the 
     Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasure Mission Package;
       (3) an assessment of key performance parameters for the 
     Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission Package 
     with each of the assessed SAS technologies; and
       (4) a review of the Department of the Navy's efforts to 
     evaluate SAS technologies in operation with allied Navies for 
     future use on the Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures 
     Mission Package.
       (c) System Testing.--The Secretary of the Navy is 
     encouraged to perform at-sea testing and experimentation of 
     sonar systems in order to provide data in support of the 
     assessment required by subsection (a).


           amendment no. 51 offered by mr. trott of michigan

       At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12XX. UNITED NATIONS PROCESSING CENTER IN ERBIL, IRAQI 
                   KURDISTAN, TO ASSIST INTERNATIONALLY-DISPLACED 
                   COMMUNITIES.

       The President shall instruct the United States Permanent 
     Representative to the United Nations to use the voice and 
     vote of the United States at the United Nations to seek the 
     establishment of a United Nations processing center in Erbil, 
     Iraqi Kurdistan, to assist internationally-displaced 
     communities.


             amendment no. 52 offered by mr. vela of texas

       At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12XX. REPORT ON VIOLENCE AND CARTEL ACTIVITY IN MEXICO.

       The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on violence and cartel activity 
     in Mexico and the impact of such on United States national 
     security.


          amendment no. 53 offered by mr. thornberry of texas

       At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12XX. UNITED STATES POLICY ON TAIWAN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) For more than 50 years, the United States and Taiwan 
     have had a unique and close relationship, which has supported 
     the economic, cultural, and strategic advantage to both 
     countries.
       (2) The United States has vital security and strategic 
     interests in the Taiwan Strait.
       (3) The Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 
     3301 et seq.) has been instrumental in maintaining peace, 
     security, and stability in the Taiwan Strait since its 
     enactment in 1979.
       (4) The Taiwan Relations Act states that it is the policy 
     of the United States to provide Taiwan with arms of a 
     defensive character and to maintain the capacity of the 
     United States to defend against any forms of coercion that 
     would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic 
     system, of the people on Taiwan.
       (b) Statement of Policy.--The Taiwan Relations Act (Public 
     Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) forms the cornerstone of 
     United States policy and relations with Taiwan.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than February 15, 2017, the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report 
     that contains a description of the steps the United States 
     has taken, plans to take, and will take to provide Taiwan 
     with arms of a defensive character in accordance with the 
     Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et 
     seq.).
       (2) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (A) the congressional defense committees; and
       (B) Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.


           amendment no. 54 offered by mr. nolan of minnesota

       At the end of section 1504, page 599, line 3, add the 
     following new subsection:
       (c) Condition on Use of Funds for Syria Train and Equip 
     Programs.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated by this 
     section for the Syria Train and Equip programs, as specified 
     in the funding table in section 4302, may not be provided to 
     any recipient that the Secretary of Defense has reported, 
     pursuant to a quarterly progress report submitted pursuant to 
     section 1209 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3541), as 
     having misused provided training and equipment.


         amendment no. 55 offered by mr. aguilar of california

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

     SEC. 16__. PILOT PROGRAMS ON DIRECT COMMISSIONS TO CYBER 
                   POSITIONS.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary 
     of the Air Force shall each carry out a pilot program to 
     improve the ability of the Army and the Air Force, 
     respectively, to recruit cyber professionals.
       (b) Elements.--Under the pilot program, the Secretaries 
     shall each allow individuals who meet educational, physical, 
     and other requirements determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary to receive original appointments as commissioned 
     officers in a cyber specialty.
       (c) Consultation.--In developing the pilot program, the 
     Secretaries may consult with the Secretary of the Navy with 
     respect to a similar program carried out by the Secretary of 
     the Navy.
       (d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress supports the direct commission of individuals 
     trained in cyber specialties because the demand for skilled 
     cyber personnel outstrips the supply of such personnel, and 
     there is great competition for such personnel with private 
     industry.


            amendment no. 56 offered by mr. dold of illinois

       In the table in section 2207(b) of division B (relating to 
     the Extension of 2014 Project Authorizations for the Navy), 
     insert after the projects relating to Hawaii a new item as 
     follows:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois................................   Great Lakes..............  Unaccompanied Housing.....     $35,851,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         amendment no. 57 offered by ms. judy chu of california

       Page 798, line 22, strike ``and''.
       Page 799, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 799, insert after line 2 the following:

       (VI) the population density of the area to be served by the 
     women's business center.


         amendment no. 58 offered by mr. perlmutter of colorado

       Add at the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII the following:

     SEC. 28__. MODIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN 
                   ARSENAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

       Section 5(d)(1) of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National 
     Wildlife Refuge Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-402; 16 U.S.C. 
     668dd note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C)(i) Notwithstanding clause (i) of subparagraph (A), 
     the restriction attached to any deed to any real property 
     designated for disposal under this section that prohibits the 
     use of the property for residential or industrial purposes 
     may be modified or removed if it is determined, through a 
     risk assessment performed pursuant to the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), that the property is 
     protective for the proposed use.
       ``(ii) The Secretary of the Army shall not be responsible 
     or liable for any of the following:
       ``(I) The cost of any risk assessment described in clause 
     (i) or any actions taken in response to such risk assessment.
       ``(II) Any damages attributable to the use of property for 
     residential or industrial purposes as the result of the 
     modification or removal of a deed restriction pursuant to 
     clause (i), or the costs of any actions taken in response to 
     such damages.''.


            amendment no. 59 offered by mr. pompeo of kansas

       Page 384, after line 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 1038. DECLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION ON PAST TERRORIST 
                   ACTIVITIES OF DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED 
                   STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of National 
     Intelligence shall--
       (1) complete a declassification review of intelligence 
     reports prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center 
     prior to Periodic Review Board sessions or detainee transfers 
     on the past terrorist activities of individuals detained at 
     United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who were 
     transferred or released from United States Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay; and
       (2) make available to the public any information 
     declassified as a result of the declassification review; and
       (3) submit to the appropriate congressional committees, 
     consistent with the protection of sources and methods, a 
     report setting forth--
       (A) the results of the declassification review; and
       (B) if any information covered by the declassification 
     review was not declassified pursuant to the review, a 
     justification for the determination not to declassify such 
     information.
       (b) Past Terrorist Activities.--For purposes of this 
     section, the past terrorist activities of an individual shall 
     include the terrorist activities conducted by the individual 
     before the transfer of the individual to the detention 
     facility at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
     including, at a minimum, the following:
       (1) The terrorist organization, if any, with which 
     affiliated.
       (2) The terrorist training, if any, received.
       (3) The role in past terrorist attacks against the 
     interests or allies of the United States.
       (4) The direct responsibility, if any, for the death of 
     citizens of the United States or members of the Armed Forces.
       (5) Any admission of any matter specified in paragraphs (1) 
     through (4).
       (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--

[[Page H2695]]

       (1) the congressional defense committees;
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (3) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
       (4) the Permanent Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (5) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.


           amendment no. 61 offered by ms. mcsally of arizona

       Page 384, after line 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 1038. PROHIBITION ON ENFORCEMENT OF MILITARY COMMISSION 
                   RULINGS PREVENTING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   FROM CARRYING OUT OTHERWISE LAWFUL DUTIES BASED 
                   ON MEMBER GENDER.

       (a) Prohibition.--No order, ruling, finding, or other 
     determination of a military commission may be construed or 
     implemented to prohibit or restrict a member of the Armed 
     Forces from carrying out duties otherwise lawfully assigned 
     to such member to the extent that the basis for such 
     prohibition or restriction is the gender of such member.
       (b) Applicability to Prior Orders, etc..--In the case of an 
     order, ruling, finding, or other determination described in 
     subsection (a) that was issued before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in a military commission and is still 
     effective as of the date of the enactment of this Act, such 
     order, ruling, finding, or determination shall be deemed to 
     be vacated and null and void only to the extent of any 
     prohibition or restriction on the duties of members of the 
     Armed Forces that is based on the gender of members.
       (c) Military Commission Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``military commission'' means a military commission 
     established under chapter 47A of title 10, United States 
     Code, and any military commission otherwise established or 
     convened by law.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this additional en bloc package No. 4 
consists of a number of amendments that have been worked with both 
sides of the aisle. I believe that this en bloc package deserves the 
support of all Members.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I do not have a speaker, so 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of subjects that are covered in this 
en bloc package, and I think it exemplifies the work that goes into 
creating this defense authorization bill.
  If you look at the size of the bill, it is very large. As a matter of 
fact, it is over 1,200 pages when you look at the legislation. Of 
course, one of the reasons this bill is so large this year is that it 
includes five major packages of reforms, including: acquisition reform, 
healthcare reform, commissary reform, organizational reform, and 
Uniform Code of Military Justice reform.
  All of these things have been worked with Members on both sides of 
the aisle. I understand that not all Members may agree with every 
provision. I certainly don't. But the point is this bill supports the 
men and women who risk their lives to serve our country, so that is the 
time when all of us should put aside whatever differences we have with 
this provision or that or this approach or that and come together on 
what has been for 54 years, and continues to be this year, a bipartisan 
product.
  For all of the amendments that are included in this en bloc package, 
I believe they deserve the support of the House. I hope they will be 
adopted.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chairman, the Small Business 
Administration's, or SBA's, Women's Business Centers, the WBCs, fill a 
critical gap in our economy.
  Despite being more than 50 percent of the population, women own just 
30 percent of all businesses, and the same obstacles that keep some 
from starting a business keep others from growing theirs.
  By providing specialized resources, Women's Business Centers are 
designed to make sure women-owned businesses succeed. That is why it is 
imperative that female entrepreneurs are able to access these resources 
in a convenient way.
  The reality is that in large, densely populated areas, the need for 
these centers is greater due to the higher concentration of women 
entrepreneurs. In fact, Los Angeles County was home to more women-owned 
businesses than any other county in the entire country in 2012, yet 
some women had to wait weeks or months or were forced to travel long 
distances in order to visit a WBC because the center closest to them 
was unable to meet the demand.
  My amendment would address this reality by ensuring that the SBA 
considers the population density of the area to be serviced when 
reviewing and selecting eligible organizations for the Women's Business 
Center grants. We must continue to work to ensure that these centers 
are convenient and accessible for all women because, when women 
succeed, America succeeds.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, among the amendments in this en bloc package is one by 
Mr. Nolan of Minnesota that prohibits funding for the Syria Train and 
Equip programs to recipients that the Secretary of Defense has reported 
as having misused that training or equipment.
  This amendment comes from a Democratic Member, but I think it is very 
important for all of us to do what we can to ensure that training and 
weapons provided to forces we are assisting in Syria not be misused, 
that they not get in the hands of terrorists. Just to take that one 
example, where I believe a good amendment has been accepted by both 
sides of the aisle, that helps ensure that the goals we all share--in 
this case, for the Syria Train and Equip program--are met. That is an 
example of the bipartisan nature of this bill.
  Similarly, there is an amendment here by Mr. Aguilar of California 
creating a pilot program to improve the ability to recruit cyber 
professionals, a new domain of warfare, an enormous challenge for the 
government to compete with Silicon Valley, the Austin-San Antonio 
corridor, and other places that are recruiting cyber professionals, but 
a good and valued step. Those are examples of the amendments in this en 
bloc package.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

                              {time}  1815


          Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
  Mr. LARSEN of WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 995, line 2, strike ``to be new and emergency in 
     nature'' and insert ``will significantly reduce the nuclear 
     threat''.
       Page 995, line 9, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 995, strike lines 13 through 17.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Larsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment aims to remedy 
a provision in the base text that could unnecessarily hamstring the 
vital work of preventing terrorists from obtaining nuclear material.
  Section 3115 of the NDAA prohibits collaboration with Russia on 
atomic energy defense activities, but provides the Secretary of Energy 
with waiver authority.
  However, the Secretary of Energy can only exercise the waiver if 
there is a new emergency and if we completely eliminate the backlog of 
physical security maintenance work at DOE defense nuclear sites in the 
U.S.
  I stand with my colleagues in opposition to Russian aggression in 
Crimea,

[[Page H2696]]

Ukraine, Syria, and threatening activity in the Baltics and elsewhere.
  However, I believe that the terms of this waiver are wrong and would 
be, frankly, impossible to execute. If we give the Secretary of Energy 
a waiver, it should be achievable.
  That is why my amendment improves the standard to a simple one: the 
Secretary must certify that this cooperation will significantly reduce 
the nuclear threat.
  It is no secret that nuclear material in Russia is vulnerable to 
theft and smuggling. According to Harvard University's Managing the 
Atom project, Russian nuclear material is at risk from both insiders 
and outsiders. Nuclear material stolen in Russia does not have to 
remain in Russia and, therefore, could be a threat to the homeland.
  Currently, we do not do any nuclear threat reduction work with 
Russia. If the opportunity presented itself and it was in the interest 
of national security, why not at least have that option?
  So I encourage Members to support my amendment so our government can 
protect Americans from nuclear terrorism, regardless of where that 
material originates.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge people to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the points raised by the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  As a matter of fact, I remember very well that one of my early 
speeches on the floor of the House was on a motion to recommit--
supporting a Democratic motion, actually--regarding our efforts to help 
the Russians get control of their nuclear material. That certainly has 
been an important priority.
  It is also true that, since I was in the well in the mid-1990s on 
that, things have changed. What we see is Russia spending an incredible 
amount of money modernizing a variety of weapons systems, including 
their nuclear weapons. It includes submarines and bombers and a whole 
variety of things, but it includes new nuclear weapons.
  Yet, on the other hand, we have enormous backlogs of deferred 
maintenance, we call it, in our nuclear infrastructure, in our nuclear 
weapons complex.
  Deferred maintenance is a euphemism, Mr. Chairman, because even in my 
own district we have folks working in deplorable conditions. We are 
talking about engineers and others working in conditions that no one 
should have to work in because we have neglected our infrastructure 
throughout the nuclear complex.
  So I think the purpose of the underlying provision is that we 
shouldn't spend money doing what Russia has the money to do for itself, 
especially when our own nuclear infrastructure is in such disrepair.
  Now, there is a waiver provision. If there is something crucial, 
then, obviously, another arrangement can be made. But the basic premise 
is Russia has changed. They are behaving not only more aggressively, 
but modernizing their military. Meanwhile, we have neglected ours. It 
is time for us to catch up.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas that Russia has changed. The threat 
of loose nuclear material has not changed. Nuclear material in Russia 
is far more vulnerable than in the United States, and stolen nuclear 
material anywhere is a threat to Americans.
  Now, on a bipartisan basis, this committee has increased funding for 
domestic physical security improvements. However, at current funding 
levels, that backlog will exist for years.
  If Congress is going to establish a waiver process, it should be an 
achievable one. Right now we do not do any of this work in Russia, but 
we have the opportunity to reduce the nuclear threat, and we should 
keep that option available. I would ask this body to support my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the importance that 
the gentleman places on securing nuclear material. I share his view. I 
still am very concerned, for example, that terrorists will obtain--and 
we know they would use--nuclear material if they have the opportunity.
  The concern here is that we are doing things for Russians with 
American taxpayer dollars so they need not do it for themselves. In 
fact, what they do for themselves is build more capability that 
threatens us. We can't continue down that road.
  I oppose the amendment, and I urge Members to do likewise.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  The amendment was rejected.


           Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 31__. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

       (a) Limitation.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 for the 
     Department of Energy for the Office of the Secretary of 
     Energy, not more than 50 percent may be obligated or expended 
     until the date on which the Secretary submits to the 
     appropriate congressional committees the report under 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 15 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees the full report, and any 
     related materials, titled ``U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 
     Coming Decades'', dated August 15, 2014.
       (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the congressional defense committees; and
       (2) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     House of Representatives and the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer a simple amendment to 
defend congressional prerogatives and ensure Congress is getting full 
information from the administration regarding one of our Nation's 
highest priority defense missions: nuclear deterrence.
  Several years ago the Secretary of Energy tasked the Nation's nuclear 
weapons labs to produce a study on the future of nuclear deterrence. 
That study was finalized in August of 2014, almost 2 years ago.
  The Secretary made a personal commitment to senior members of the 
Armed Services Committee that he would send over the report resulting 
from that study. Now, 2 years later, we still have not received that 
report.
  This amendment will ensure DOE acts to fulfill the Secretary's 
commitment to provide this report to Congress, ensure Congress can 
conduct appropriate oversight and has visibility into matters as 
important as the future of nuclear deterrence, which the Secretary of 
Defense has called the Nation's highest priority defense mission, and 
it fences only a couple million dollars in administrative funds within 
the Office of the Secretary. This will be enough to ensure we receive 
this report and will not impact the DOE's mission at all.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friendship with the gentleman 
from Alabama, but I think this amendment goes way too far.
  To fence half the funds of the Office of the Secretary of Energy is 
overkill.

[[Page H2697]]

Secretary Moniz has done an excellent job. This is really a punishment, 
though, that will go to the next Secretary, a man who is not in any way 
responsible for this delay.
  Has there been a delay? It is my information that the chairman of the 
full committee has had access to this report. Access to this report has 
been offered to the gentleman from Alabama and to myself.
  Without having read the report, we do not know what issues of 
classification or bureaucracy are involved in this. But this is among 
the Nation's most precious and most classified secrets. To me, to use a 
sledgehammer like this against a good person and against that good 
person's successor, whoever that may be, is really a crude way to 
handle a breakdown in communications.
  Surely there is a better way to solve this problem. His office is 
just down the street. We get along with him just fine. He has been 
fully communicative and extremely able in every aspect. But to have a 
delayed report merit a sanction like this is pretty extraordinary.
  So I would urge my friend, the gentleman from Alabama, to reconsider 
and not have what I consider to be a staff-driven tiff escalate into 
something much greater than it should be.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend's 
remarks, and I agree. I like Mr. Moniz. I think the Secretary is a fine 
man and he is trying to do the right thing.
  I have had a conversation with the ranking member earlier today, but 
I haven't had a chance to follow up with him. I have been on the floor 
doing a lot.
  The only problem I have with withdrawing the amendment is we need 
this report between now and the time we go to conference to take what 
is yielded from it and visit with the appropriators.
  Just me reading the report with you in private would not give me the 
documentation to take what it says--what I believe it says--and produce 
some policy that will deal with what the report says is a threat to our 
country.

                              {time}  1830

  For that reason, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment, and reassure my friend and the Secretary that if, in fact, 
the report is forthcoming, and we are going to have a few months 
between now and the time we go to conference, I will be happy, in 
conference, to ask that this provision be withdrawn.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Alabama. I would 
just urge that both he and other Members not use this in any way as a 
precedent. It is one thing to fence an appropriate amount of money over 
a worthy disagreement, but this is overkill in this case, at least in 
my opinion.
  So we probably will not prevail on the vote, but we need to establish 
precedents that will work for the strongest possible defense for that 
country, and a minimum of bureaucratic conflict.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from 
Tennessee, and I urge my friends in the House to vote ``yes.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Zinke

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60 
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 16__. REQUESTS FOR FORCES TO MEET SECURITY REQUIREMENTS 
                   FOR LAND-BASED NUCLEAR FORCES.

       (a) Certification.--Not later than five days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff shall certify to the congressional defense 
     committees that the Chairmans has approved any requests for 
     forces, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, of a 
     commander of a combatant command to meet the security 
     requirements of land-based nuclear forces.
       (b) Limitation.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
     by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 
     for the travel and representational expenses of the Secretary 
     of Defense, not more than 75 percent may be obligated or 
     expended until the date on which the Secretary certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that there is a 
     competitive acquisition process in place to ensure the 
     fielding of a UH-1N replacement aircraft in fiscal year 2018.

  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
60 be modified by the form that I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:


    modification to amendment no. 60 offered by mr. zinke of montana

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

     SEC. 16__. REQUESTS FOR FORCES TO MEET SECURITY REQUIREMENTS 
                   FOR LAND-BASED NUCLEAR FORCES.

       (a) Certification.--Not later than five days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff shall certify to the congressional defense 
     committees that the Chairman has approved any requests for 
     forces, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, of a 
     commander of a combatant command to meet the security 
     requirements of land-based nuclear forces.
       (b) Limitation.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
     by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 
     for the travel and representational expenses of the Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
     Logistics, not more than 75 percent may be obligated or 
     expended until the date on which the Under Secretary 
     certifies to the congressional defense committees that there 
     is a competitive acquisition process in place to ensure that 
     a UH-1N replacement aircraft is under contract in fiscal year 
     2018.

  Mr. ZINKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Montana?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the original request of the 
gentleman from Montana?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Zinke) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will 
ensure that our servicemembers in the nuclear security forces have the 
ability to do their job.
  Each and every day, these men and women are tasked with the 
protection of our nuclear weapons. This is not a mission that we can 
fail, and, thankfully, they have performed their mission successfully 
for over half a decade.
  Unfortunately, despite the gravity and importance of this mission, 
these men and women must use Huey helicopters, UH-1s, that are in the 
Vietnam-era. They must be able to respond anywhere in a 32,000-square-
mile area, larger than the State of Maine, while using these 
helicopters that are over 50 years old.
  Air Force demonstrations performed at Minot Air Force Base have shown 
time and time again that critical security shortages exist using these 
Hueys, and they are problematic in mission success.
  The Air Force and the Department of Defense have known this for over 
a decade but, unfortunately, have consistently kicked the can down the 
road.
  My amendment ensures the replacement of the Huey aircraft is done 
now. The mission of protecting our forces is too important to delay yet 
again, and the Air Force and DOD, by their own tests, have proven its 
vulnerability.
  This amendment ensures a full and open competition, but does not 
allow the Air Force to further delay replacement.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Schweikert).

[[Page H2698]]

  

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, we had a technical issue earlier, and 
we had reached out to my friend's office. I congratulate your staff. 
They understood the mechanical issue. It was a procurement timing. It 
has been taken care of with the amendment to the amendment, and so I 
want to make sure anyone that is listening, that the concerns that were 
being brought up from my office have been dealt with.
  We now are fully in support of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I am as 
frustrated as anybody that we are having to be here today.
  Secretary Carter has often said, and I agree with him completely, 
that the nuclear deterrent priority is our number one national security 
mission. But, unfortunately, that rhetoric has not matched up with the 
decision on this issue coming from the Secretary's office.
  The UH-1N fleet that is used by the Air Force Security Forces for the 
ICBM field security consist of Vietnam-era helos.
  The UH-1N program is a case study in a failed DOD acquisition 
process:
  The first move to replace the helos was in 2004. The Joint Staff 
validated a military requirement in 2010;
  The Air Force canceled the replacement program in 2011;
  And the SecDef recently overruled the SecAF in conducting a sole 
source replacement program, proposing instead a competition in 2018.
  Admiral Haney, Commander, USSTRATCOM, stated in February, 2016: 
``Maintaining the security of our nuclear weapons requires a modern 
helicopter with sufficient capabilities to counter both today's and 
future threats. The UH-1N does not fully meet the current ICBM complex 
security requirements as outlined by DOD and USSTRATCOM.''
  We have been warned, colleagues. Let me be clear. This is the 
security of nuclear weapons here at home. There is no higher priority. 
If we are going down the path of competition, that is fine; but we have 
no more time to waste.
  I want to urge the gentleman's amendment be adopted.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say thank you to everyone 
for working on this bill and doing slight amendments to ensure that we 
have a fair and open competition but yet not delay the problem.
  I think we can all understand that we need to replace the Hueys. The 
Hueys are inaccurate. They have been inaccurate for a long time. The 
acquisition process yet again, as we have identified, is broke.
  So I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to place this 
in importance. Our nuclear weapon and our arsenal needs to be 
protected. We face an asymmetrical enemy, and ensuring that they are 
safe at all times is part of what this Congress should be doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Zinke) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4909) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 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.

                          ____________________