[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 172 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H7069-H7074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2943, NATIONAL 
             DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 937 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 937

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 2943) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     2017 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
     for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit if applicable.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman

[[Page H7070]]

from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 937 provides for 
consideration of the conference report for the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017. This marks the 55th consecutive 
year that the House and Senate are coming together to pass a bill to 
authorize spending and set policy for our Nation's military.
  Just as important, as is the case with most of our work on the Armed 
Services Committee that I have the privilege to serve on, this was a 
bipartisan process that allowed for numerous members to have input into 
the final bill. That is a testament to the great work and leadership of 
Chairman Mac Thornberry, Ranking Member Adam Smith, our subcommittee 
chairmen and the entire committee staff. This is truly a professional 
team that puts in long hours to make this bill possible, and they 
deserve a lot of credit for their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I have said on this floor many times before that our 
military faces a serious readiness crisis. Budget cuts have really 
thinned out our military and hurt our ability to train and prepare for 
conflict.
  One of the most startling examples of this readiness crisis is the 
fact that some of our marines have been forced to get parts for their 
F-18s off of planes in a museum. That is simply absurd and it is deeply 
troubling.
  Just as bad, less than one-third of Army forces are at acceptable 
readiness levels for ground combat and our pilots are getting less 
training than many of our adversaries.
  Thankfully, this NDAA stops the drawdown of the military and 
authorizes critical funding for the operation and maintenance of our 
military. The bill authorizes important funding for training, helps 
rebuild outdated infrastructure, and ensures our military men and women 
have the munitions they need for ongoing operations.
  The bill also provides for a 2.1 percent pay increase for our 
military. This is the largest pay raise for our troops in 6 years, and 
it is especially important for our military families.
  Additionally, the bill supports our Nation's military operations 
around the globe. As we fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and 
continue to have a presence in Afghanistan, it is vital that our 
military has the tools they need to carry out their mission and defeat 
radical Islamic terrorism.
  Just as important, this NDAA provides for a continued military 
presence in Europe to support our allies and deter Russian aggression, 
as well as resources to support U.S. operations in the ever-important 
Pacific.
  Finally, the NDAA includes some important reforms to make our 
military and the Pentagon more effective and more efficient. This 
includes updates to the Goldwater-Nichols Act to improve the overall 
organizational structure at the Pentagon and throughout our military.
  The bill builds upon recent reforms to the Pentagon's acquisition 
programs to cut down on red tape and spur innovation and research.
  It also updates the Uniform Code of Military Justice to promote 
accountability within our military.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, but it alone will not be enough to 
fully turn the tide back in favor of the fully trained, fully capable, 
and fully equipped military that we need.
  Congress and the incoming President must act early next year on a 
funding bill to fully fund our military, and we need to go above even 
what is included in this bill. As Chairman Thornberry has indicated, we 
need to push for a defense supplemental that includes important 
military programs that were, unfortunately, left out of this final 
bill.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member 
Smith, the Appropriations Committee, and the incoming administration to 
get this funding bill taken care of as soon as possible next year 
because, without supplemental funding, we will leave the job half done.
  While this is just one step in ensuring our military is ready for the 
fight, it is an important one nonetheless; so I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this truly bipartisan legislation. For the 55th 
consecutive year, let's send a message to our servicemembers that 
supporting the United States military isn't a Republican goal or a 
Democrat goal--it is an American goal. I urge my colleagues to support 
House Resolution 937 and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the House Armed Services 
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), and the honorable 
ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for their 
service and for concluding work on this conference report, which 
authorizes resources for our uniformed men and women, civilian defense 
workforce, our veterans and their families.
  The defense bill is one of the most complex bills that comes each 
year before Congress for consideration and action, and I know the 
hours'--and the weeks'--and the months'--worth of work that goes into 
these negotiations by staff and Members. It is also, in general, a bill 
that receives broad bipartisan support, which is a reflection of the 
leadership, character, and abilities of the chairman, of the ranking 
member, and of their staffs.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to support in this conference 
report and some provisions that continue to raise concern. Some items 
that were of grave concern have been dropped from the final conference 
report, like the fiscal cliff, language that would have authorized 
discrimination by Federal contractors, and some anti-environment 
riders.
  I am very upset, however, that, for the second year in a row, the 
House caved to unreasonable Senate demands to drop the House-passed 
provision to honor our Atomic Veterans with a simple service medal. 
These uniformed men and women literally gave their lives in service to 
our country. In many cases, totally unprotected, they were exposed to 
extreme levels of radiation during the post-World War II era and the 
subsequent cold war period. Because they signed secrecy oaths, they 
could not even inform their doctors that their many illnesses might be 
related to radiation exposure.
  They never complained, and they did their duty. Their heroism and 
their service have been publicly recognized by Presidents George H. W. 
Bush and Bill Clinton. All we are seeking is for them to receive a 
simple service medal. More than three out of every four of these 
veterans have already passed away unrecognized for their service; yet 
the Senate--and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain 
and a handful of Pentagon bureaucrats in particular--seems to think it 
is a major scandal to provide them with a service medal. My meetings 
with some at the Pentagon have been particularly troubling because of 
what I have perceived to be their total lack of sensitivity and their 
total lack of appreciation for the service that these veterans have 
provided to our country.
  These men and women deserve better from their government. I hope, 
next year, when the House, once again, includes this bipartisan measure 
in the defense bill, that it won't be so weak-kneed as to cave for a 
third time before such unreasonable intransigence.
  This conference report, like its most recent predecessors, continues 
to authorize billions of dollars for our wars against the Islamic State 
in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere without any debate on an Authorization 
for Use of Military Force in those countries and elsewhere.
  I hope that one of Speaker Ryan's priorities during the first week of 
January will be to meet with President-elect Trump and work out a 
timeline for when Mr. Trump will send an

[[Page H7071]]

AUMF to Congress on these wars and when the House will finally fulfill 
its constitutional duty to debate and vote on this matter. For over 
2\1/2\ years, this House has failed, time and time again, to take up 
this serious debate even after President Obama sent an AUMF to Capitol 
Hill for action.
  Enough is enough. With a Republican in the White House, I hope the 
Republican-controlled Congress will finally do its duty. The cowardice 
of the 113th and 114th Congresses must not be allowed to extend into 
and infect the 115th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say one more thing about the NDAA conference 
report.
  This conference report includes a very important title that 
incorporates the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. As 
many of my colleagues know, this is a bipartisan measure, championed 
and introduced in the House by my friend and colleague, Congressman 
Chris Smith; me; and by Ben Cardin in the United States Senate.
  The Global Magnitsky Act builds on the seminal Sergei Magnitsky Rule 
of Law Accountability Act, which is legislation that I authored that 
focused on Russia, which was approved by Congress and signed into law 
in 2012. That law targets individual Russian officials who are 
accountable for the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, as well 
as other Russian officials engaged in corruption, human rights abuses, 
or who seek to undermine the rule of law. It denies them visas to the 
United States and freezes their assets in the United States.
  The Global Magnitsky Act will extend the use of those same targeted 
sanctions to all countries, not just to Russia. It will ensure that 
visiting the United States and having access to our financial system, 
including to U.S. dollars, are privileges that should not be granted to 
those officials who violate basic human rights and the rule of law.
  Mr. Speaker, as we enter the uncharted territory of a Trump 
administration, it is critical that Congress maintain its bipartisan 
leadership and support for human rights. It is critical that Congress 
continue to hold accountable the Russian Government and government 
officials around the world who engage in corruption, human rights 
abuses, and who flout the rule of law.
  During the long campaign, two words I never heard Mr. Trump utter 
were ``human rights.'' Quite frankly, I was disturbed by his public 
admiration of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, whose government has 
jailed and even killed human rights defenders and political opponents.

  Mr. Speaker, in past years, I have often voted against the final 
passage of the NDAA conference report. In general, I can't vote for a 
bill that provides tens of billions of dollars for wars that Congress 
refuses to debate and authorize. I can't vote for a bill that ties the 
hands of a President--any President--to shut down the prison at the 
U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. I can't support a bloated budget 
that fails to make hard choices, that provides the Pentagon with even 
more money than it asks for, and that continues to increase in size--
without end--for the foreseeable future.
  However, because of the inclusion of the Global Magnitsky Human 
Rights Accountability Act, this year, I will vote in support of the FY 
2017 NDAA conference report. The Global Magnitsky Act will give 
Congress a tool with which to hold accountable human rights abusers 
even if our new President ends up turning a blind eye. This language in 
this authorization bill is important because it sends a signal--no 
matter what our next President believes on the issue of human rights--
that, in this Congress, in a bipartisan way, we believe that, if the 
United States of America stands for anything, it needs to stand out 
loud and foursquare for human rights.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report 
notwithstanding the many reservations we may have.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee and 
a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. Frankly, I 
thank him for the wonderful work he provided as a member of the Armed 
Services Committee to bring this legislation to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to quickly associate myself with my friend 
from Massachusetts' remarks about the authorization. I think he is 
absolutely right on that issue--we have worked together on that--and it 
is something that ought to happen. It is an institutional question of 
whether or not we retain our war-making authority, and he has done 
admirable work in that area.
  The bill, itself, which I support--and, of course, the rule and the 
underlying legislation--is a very important piece of legislation.
  I commend our friends on the Armed Services Committee for working in 
a bipartisan fashion, first, to make sure they stop the erosion of the 
end strength of the military. It is an absolutely critical thing to do. 
It could not have happened had they not worked together and made some 
tough decisions.
  Second, I want to point out all of the reforms in this legislation--
procurement reforms, in particular. They have gone well beyond simply 
appropriating money for the military as they have done some important 
work to put important tools in our hands that, I think in going 
forward, will save billions of dollars.
  I also commend them for fully funding a pay raise for the men and 
women in uniform. That is an important thing. The amount of money--a 
2.1 percent increase--is relatively modest but appropriate. The more 
important thing is the signal it sends to the men and women who put 
themselves between us and harm's way, and I thank the gentleman for his 
role in that.
  Finally, I want to pick up on one of the points that my friend from 
Alabama made that I couldn't agree with more. As important and as good 
as this legislation is, if we do not marry it with the money that it 
takes to actually implement it, we are making the mistake of a 
lifetime. In my opinion, we could do that, literally, this year if we 
were to do an omnibus; but if we fail to do that and if we do a CR, my 
friend is exactly right in that we should act as rapidly as possible in 
January to make sure that we actually put the money together with the 
excellent authorization work that is done here. Otherwise, we simply 
undercut all of the good work of the Armed Services Committee.
  This is something that we need to focus on. The authorization is 
important, but if we don't appropriate the money, a lot of the hard 
work that was done on the Armed Services Committee will be for naught, 
and it will be for naught until we actually make that decision. We 
shouldn't wait until the end of April or the end of May. We ought to 
get it done as quickly as we can. I would like to get it done before we 
go home, but if we can't do that, we certainly ought to get it done as 
quickly as we can when we get back.
  With all of that aside, again, I congratulate both sides of the 
aisle. This is a model of bipartisanship. My friend from Massachusetts 
mentioned some other measures in here with regard to Russia that, I 
think, are absolutely also appropriate, and I applaud their inclusion.
  I urge every Member to support the rule and, certainly, to vote for 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the defense authorization bill. Our men and 
women in uniform are the greatest fighting force in the world, and they 
deserve our unwavering support. I thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking 
Member Smith for their hard work on this year's effort, but I oppose 
the rule because this bill could be made better not by expanding it, 
but by taking out parts that don't belong there in the first place.
  Year after year, Congress has placed more and more diplomatic 
prerogatives under the military's purview. There are 80 provisions from 
the House and Senate bills in the conference report that

[[Page H7072]]

cross into the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. As that 
committee's ranking member, I am grateful to my friend, Mr. Smith of 
Washington, as we have worked together to improve these parts of the 
bill; but different agencies have different responsibilities and 
capabilities. That is why different committees oversee these issues.
  We would never ask a group of Foreign Service Officers to carry out a 
targeted strike on an enemy. That is not their job. So why would we 
assign diplomatic functions to those who are already handling the tall 
order of protecting and defending us?
  Take the Asia Maritime Security Initiative--a program seeking greater 
collaboration among our Asian partners to solve maritime disputes 
peacefully. This is the sort of effort that our diplomats are trained 
to deal with. It takes time and precision and patience to develop 
interest among governments and to ramp up capacity; but the Pentagon 
moved ahead without the State Department, and the DOD's approach was 
like performing surgery with a hacksaw.
  The Philippines and Vietnam were slow to come on board. That is 
where, I believe, careful diplomacy would have paid off. Instead, the 
DOD threw money at the problem. The Philippines didn't want the money, 
and they weren't ready to absorb it; so the effort fell apart. Now, in 
a difficult time in American-Philippines relations, we have a gaping 
hole in our maritime security strategy. This should be a lesson 
learned, but, instead, this bill will put even more diplomatic 
responsibility in military hands.
  For instance, the bill diverts Defense Department dollars to the 
Global Engagement Center, the GEC. It is a State Department program 
that is focused on countering violent extremist propaganda overseas. 
The goal of this provision is worthwhile, but the way it is written 
ignores overwhelming advice from experts in the field and from our 
public diplomacy officials who are already hard at work in Foggy 
Bottom. Instead of building on what we already know from years of 
countering propaganda, it says that the DOD should decide how much 
money to give a State Department program. Mr. Speaker, that is just bad 
policy, and that example just scratches the surface.

                              {time}  1245

  So I support the underlying bill because it is good for our military, 
but I don't support this rule. I did not sign the conference report 
because I have deep concerns that the line between our military and 
diplomatic efforts is blurring. We will be back here in a year, and I 
hope at that time we will pass a defense authorization that deals just 
with defense.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And 
if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up legislation authored by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), who has been a leader on this issue, that would 
require Presidential nominees to disclose 3 years of their tax returns.
  Mr. Speaker, tax returns provide the public with vital information 
about our Presidential candidates. Have they paid taxes at all? Do they 
keep money offshore? Or have they taken advantage of tax loopholes? 
This is important information that voters have a right to know. The 
American people should expect candidates running for President to be 
open and transparent about their tax returns, and this legislation 
would ensure that transparency. It is hard for me to believe that 
giving the people the right to know about a Presidential candidate's 
financial dealings is controversial. I hope that this isn't.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all House Members to 
defeat the previous question so that this bipartisan, bicameral 
legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in 
order for immediate floor debate and a vote.
  Now, the legislation is really very simple. It requires Presidential 
nominees of major political parties to file 3 previous years of their 
Federal tax returns with the Federal Election Commission. Now, tax 
returns contain vital information. We all know that. But it is also 
vital for the public, for voters, to consider. They should be able to 
know whether a candidate has paid taxes, if they have paid any taxes, 
how much they have paid, whether they have made charitable 
contributions and to whom, and whether they took advantage of tax 
loopholes or offshore tax shelters.
  This election year, we experienced a bipartisan problem in this area. 
For the first time since 1976, Mr. Trump, who is now the President-
elect, would not release any tax returns to the public whatsoever. And 
on the Democratic side, Senator Sanders only disclosed a summary of 1 
year of his tax returns. I think that these are areas that demonstrate 
themselves to fall far short of what the American people deserve in 
terms of transparency. So this legislation ensures that the custom of 
disclosing--and it has been a custom since 1976--that they disclose 
multiple years of tax returns and that it be required by Federal law 
for future Presidential candidates to do so.
  Former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated earlier this year 
that: ``Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of 
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities, 
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.''
  One of the Republican cosponsors of my bill, Congressman Mark 
Sanford, wrote in The New York Times in August: ``The Presidency is the 
most powerful political position on Earth, and the idea of enabling the 
voter the chance to see how a candidate has handled his or her finances 
is a central part of making sure the right person gets the job.''
  So I rise today because I believe Congress should write this 
important disclosure tradition into law. I urge my colleagues to reject 
the previous question so we can hold an immediate vote on the 
Presidential Tax Transparency Act.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is not unusual for me to come down here to handle pieces of 
legislation for the Rules Committee that pertain to our national 
defense and find myself in a debate about issues that have nothing to 
do with national defense. Whatever else you can say about the issue 
about the President or the President-elect providing tax returns, it 
has nothing to do with the defense of the United States of America. It 
has nothing to do with authorizing what the Army, the Marine Corps, the 
Air Force, and the Navy need to defend this country.

  So whatever may be the merits of the proposal we just heard from the 
gentlewoman from California, it is totally irrelevant to the piece of 
legislation and the resolution on the rules before this body. So I 
think that it is an interesting argument. Maybe there is another time 
to have it, but this is not that time.
  We need to stay focused on what needs to be authorized to defend the 
United States of America, and I would urge my colleagues to reject the 
notion that we just heard.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me disagree with my distinguished colleague that 
somehow this has nothing to do with national defense. I strongly 
disagree with him on that. I think where a Presidential candidate or a 
soon-to-be President has financial dealings is related directly to our 
national defense. Does he have investments in Russia? Does he have 
investments in countries that have been hostile to human rights or to 
U.S. interests in various parts of the world? That is very relevant.
  One of the reasons why we are utilizing this mechanism of defeating 
the previous question--by the way, if we defeat the previous question, 
we still

[[Page H7073]]

get to bring up the defense authorization conference report. But one of 
the reasons that we do it is because--the way this House operates is 
that, if you are in the minority, you don't get an opportunity to get 
any of your amendments made in order or your bills made in order, 
especially bills of any consequence. So that is why we are utilizing 
this. This is very relevant to our national defense.
  As I said, I normally vote against these authorization bills because 
I think they are overbloated. I think there are issues concerning the 
fact that we spend billions of dollars on wars that we never debate or 
we don't properly authorize here in the Congress.
  But I am voting for this one because of the Global Magnitsky 
legislation because of the human rights provisions. Because I don't 
know where the head of our next President is going to be when it comes 
to standing up to abuses by people like Vladimir Putin, against 
opposition leaders and journalists and anybody he disagrees with.
  This bill is named after a guy named Sergei Magnitsky who, by the 
way, was an accountant in Russia who uncovered the largest corruption 
scandal in Russia's history. What was his reward for doing that? Putin 
had him put in jail. He was tortured, and he was beaten to death. You 
know, that is what happens in places that are run by strongmen like 
Vladimir Putin.
  So, yeah, I would like to know whether or not our next President has 
investments in Russia. I think that would be very relevant to know. 
Quite frankly, the reason why this Magnitsky legislation is so 
important is it gives us a tool to pressure the next administration on 
the issue of human rights, and it is a signal to people like Putin and 
other dictators and strongmen around the world that Congress is not 
going to be silent in the face of human rights abuses. So I think this 
is all very relevant.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
we can do what I would think most people in this country think is 
noncontroversial, which is to have people running for President release 
their tax returns so we know. This shouldn't be a big deal. We should 
do it now, and we have an opportunity to do it now and still vote on 
this NDAA bill. I hope that we will do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 20 national 
organizations voicing concern about the $3.2 billion added to the 
overseas contingency operations account in funds not requested by the 
Pentagon.

       Dear Senator/Representative: The recently released 
     conference report for the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense 
     Authorization Act (NDAA) would authorize an additional $3.2 
     billion unrequested by the Pentagon, effectively exceeding 
     the spending limits set in place previously by Congress as 
     part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and Bipartisan Budget 
     Act of 2015. As organizations representing Americans across 
     the political spectrum, we are writing to voice our 
     disagreement with this tactic.
       The very real challenges facing our military are not the 
     result of a lack of funds. They are the result of years of 
     failing to make necessary, tough choices our nation's 
     security requires. If Congress votes to simply throw 
     additional billions of dollars at this problem by using a 
     budgetary gimmick involving the Overseas Contingency 
     Operations (OCO) account, you will do nothing to solve these 
     problems. Rather, you will simply be guaranteeing another 
     year of massive spending at the Pentagon. Refusing to make 
     hard choices and trade-offs does not strengthen our security, 
     it undermines it.
       Earlier this year, many of our organizations expressed our 
     opposition to the House Armed Services Committee's draft NDAA 
     which included an $18 billion gimmick to fund the OCO account 
     above previously agreed upon levels. What was a bad idea at 
     $18 billion is still a bad idea at $3.2 billion. We strongly 
     urge you to scrap any plans to fund the OCO account above the 
     levels set in existing law and finally pursue a path of 
     fiscal responsibility at the Pentagon.
           Sincerely,
       Campaign for Liberty, Center for International Policy, 
     Council for a Livable World, Council for Citizens Against 
     Government Waste, FreedomWorks, Friends Committee on National 
     Legislation, Just Foreign Policy, National Priorities 
     Project, National Taxpayers Union, Peace Action, Project on 
     Government Oversight, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Taxpayers 
     Protection Alliance, Taxpayers United of America, The 
     Libertarian Institute, The London Center, United for Peace 
     and Justice, Win Without War, Women's Action for New 
     Directions.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, one of my many concerns about this bill--
and if it wasn't for the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability 
Act, I would be voting against this bill because of things like that.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let the American people know 
what the financial dealings of their Presidential candidates and soon-
to-be Presidents are, and then we get on to dealing with passing the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  The Presidential election is over. Maybe some people would like to 
relitigate the results, but certainly the National Defense 
Authorization Act is not the place to do that. So we need to get back 
to the focus of what we are here about today, and that is authorizing 
the defense of the United States of America.
  I appreciate the gentleman's support for the rule. I appreciate his 
support, which he says is unusual for the underlying bill. I also agree 
with him, as I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma agree with him, about 
the need for us in the future to address an authorization for the use 
of military force in the Middle East.
  I don't know what the authorization is under law for what we are 
undertaking today in Yemen, what we are undertaking today in Libya, or 
what we are undertaking today in other countries like Somalia. I hope 
the new administration will take a complete new look at that and come 
to us and tell us what they think a real strategy for success and 
victory is. Now, that is something we could all get together and 
authorize. This is not the piece of legislation to address it, and I 
appreciate the fact that my friend is willing to drop his concerns 
about that to support it.
  We are here to do one very important thing--and it is the most 
important thing that the Congress does--and that is to provide for the 
defense of the American people, pure and simple. This rule, the 
underlying legislation, does that.
  There is more work to be done at the beginning of next year, and I 
hope and am confident that there will be a real effort to come back and 
do that. At this point in time, it is important that we move forward 
with this National Defense Authorization Act for the 55th straight 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 
937 and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 937 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5386) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
     require candidates of major parties for the office of 
     President to disclose recent tax return information. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means and the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on House Administration. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5386.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.

[[Page H7074]]

       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________