[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 173 (Friday, December 2, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H7123-H7134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2943, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2017
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 937, I call
up the conference report on 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, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 937, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House in
Book I of November 30, 2016, at page H6376.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry)
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on the conference report to accompany S.
2943.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the House the conference report
for the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Once the
President signs this measure into law, it will be the 55th consecutive
year in which Congresses of both parties and Presidents of both parties
have enacted a defense authorization bill.
I want to start by thanking the distinguished gentleman from
Washington, Ranking Member Smith. Not only has he focused on what is
good for the troops and good for the country in this bill, that has
been his focus throughout this Congress. It has certainly been my
pleasure to work with him toward that end. We do not always agree on
what is good for the troops and what is good for the country, but we
always agree that that comes first. Our work together has certainly
been productive, and I appreciate that opportunity.
Ranking Member Smith and I have a terrific team on the Armed Services
Committee; 63 outstanding members, all of whom have contributed to this
product. I certainly appreciate the contributions they have made that
have made such a large bill possible.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does good things for the men and women who
serve our Nation in the military, and it supports our country's
national security. I want to just touch on a few of the highlights,
starting with the fact that this bill authorizes spending of $3.2
billion more than the President has requested. Now, that is not nearly
enough, and my great hope is that the new incoming administration will
submit to Congress a supplemental request that can really get about the
job of rebuilding the military, which is so essential.
The $3.2 billion, in addition to what the President has requested, is
focused on people; and that is exactly what the primary focus of this
bill is. So, for example, it provides the full pay raise to which the
troops are statutorily entitled for the first time in 6 years; that is
in this bill. It stops the layoffs of military personnel, which have
been going on, and, at least, prevents it from getting any worse.
It starts to stabilize the readiness problems that are making it more
and more difficult for our troops to accomplish their mission and
increasingly represents a danger to their lives.
It improves the military healthcare system for the benefit of our
troops and their families so that they will have a more consistent
experience, that they will get better care, more convenient hours, and
a number of things that are in this bill.
In addition to the reforms related to military health care, there are
a number of very significant reforms in other areas. For example, in
acquisition, we try to make sure that not only we get more value for
the taxpayer dollars but that we are more agile in being able to get
new technology into the hands of the warfighters faster.
We have commissary reform, which maintains the benefit but reduces
the burden on the taxpayers.
We have the first comprehensive rewrite of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice in 30 years, and that is a big part of the reason that
this bill is the size that it is.
We have organizational reform that streamlines the bureaucracy and
helps reduce the overhead so more resources can go to the front lines.
There are many items in this bill, Mr. Speaker, from replenishing
munitions of which we have shortages to dealing with the California
National Guard repayment issue that has come up in recent weeks.
Other speakers will give more detail about many of those provisions.
I just want to take this moment, first, to thank the staff on both
sides of the aisle for their work in producing this product. We have a
unified staff on the Armed Services Committee. We work together to
solve problems. And through the ups and downs of the political calendar
and all of the other issues that impact our bill, they have done a
terrific job in getting us to this point and have served the Nation by
doing so. I want to express my appreciation to staff on both sides for
that work.
Finally, I also want to pay tribute to the members of our committee
who will not be with us in the next Congress for a variety of reasons.
They include the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline),
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gibson), the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Nugent), the gentlewoman from
[[Page H7124]]
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Duckworth), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Graham), and the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Ashford).
I particularly want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes,
Subcommittee Chairman Joe Heck, and Ranking Member Loretta Sanchez for
their leadership and years of contributions to the military of our
country. We will miss them.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First of all, I want to say that this is an excellent product. It was
not easy to pull together. It is a very large bill with a lot of very
important issues. As Chairman Thornberry indicated, a lot of people
contributed to it. Certainly, everybody on our committee, but then many
Members who aren't on the committee in the House and, of course, our
friends in the Senate. We all worked together and found a way to get
through the areas of disagreement and to get to a very good bill, with
the central thought that it is our job in passing this bill to give the
men and women who serve us in the Armed Services all of the tools they
need to do the job we ask them to do.
So I really want to echo Chairman Thornberry's comments and thank our
staff, first of all, for the outstanding work that they have done in
putting together this product. I thank the Members for their
contribution. Also, perhaps most importantly, I thank Mr. Thornberry
for his leadership as the chairman of the committee.
I have been on this committee for 20 years, and we have had a
tradition from the moment I showed up and before then that this is a
bipartisan committee that is focused on getting its work done. Whatever
the hurdles, whatever the difficulties, whatever the disagreements, we
know how important it is to produce this bill and how important it is
to our troops who are fighting to protect us and provide the national
security that we need.
Mr. Thornberry has upheld that tradition. We have had many chairmen
in those 20 years. They have all had that first and foremost in mind.
This is not a partisan committee. This is a committee that works
together to get its job done. Mr. Thornberry has done an outstanding
job of that. He has certainly been an excellent partner for me, and we
even found a way to work with the Senate and then made that work. So I
thank all of those people who contributed to this.
Chairman Thornberry is also right. I think that the most striking
thing about this bill is how much it does to help reform the way things
are done at the Department of Defense. There is much on acquisition
reform, all aimed at trying to get the taxpayers more for the money
they spent. Because the chairman is right, as in many areas of
government, there are more needs than there is money.
What we have to do is try to figure out how to make that money go as
far as possible. Acquisition reform is a key part of that. We really
struggled in the early part of the 21st century with a lot of programs
that went overbudget. We are still dealing with the legacy of some of
that, but very proud that, in the last few years, that has declined, as
we have passed acquisition reform, and as we have figured out better
ways to get things in the field, into service more quickly, commercial,
off-the-shelf technology, more improvements in our acquisition. That is
critical if we are going to be able to use the scarce resources we have
to the best of our ability. So we put together an excellent product.
Also, as Chairman Thornberry mentioned, we do have the full pay raise
for the troops that they need and desperately deserve. I will just
close by saying, I think, that is the thing that you can really see
from this bill. It prioritizes the men and women who serve in the
military to try to make sure that we provide for them, give them all
the training they need and all the support they need so that when we
ask them to do something, they are trained and ready to do it. I really
believe that is the most important thing that we do on this committee.
We can have many, many debates about what our national security
strategy should be, where we should employ our forces, how we should
use them, and what equipment we should provide for them. But the one
thing that we have to agree on is, whatever we decide the mission
should be, we have to make absolutely certain that we provide the men
and women everything they need to be ready to carry out that mission so
that we do not send them into a fight unprepared. I think we are doing
a very good job of that.
There are many challenges ahead, as the chairman noted. We have a lot
of demands. We do not have an infinite amount of money. So we are going
to keep working hard to try to figure out how to make that money go as
far as possible.
Again, I want to thank all the people who worked on this process.
This, I think, is an example of how Congress should work, how
legislation should work, people working together, having differences,
working them out, and producing a product that improves our Nation and,
in this case, improves the quality of national security.
Again, I thank Chairman Thornberry. I think this is an excellent
bill. I urge passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), chairman of the Seapower and
Projection Forces Subcommittee.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
I want to thank Chairman Thornberry for his leadership in bringing to
the floor this National Defense Authorization Act and for his
incredible contribution to the national defense of this country. I also
would like to recognize the efforts of Congressman Smith, who is the
ranking member, for his dedication and commitment to get this bill to
the floor.
During the last 8 years, our military readiness has been impacted and
our force structure has declined. For example, naval aviation has only
3 in 10 Navy jet aircraft that are fully mission capable. Aircraft
carrier gaps in critical regions persist. Navy ship deployments have
increased almost 40 percent, and submarine demand continues to outpace
availability.
As to the Air Force, our B-1 fleet was pulled back from the Persian
Gulf this year because of engine maintenance issues and replaced with
B-52s that are over 50 years old. I think everyone would agree that
these are disturbing trends.
It is obvious that we need to concurrently increase readiness and
invest in critical capabilities to ensure that our Nation is capable of
projecting force and deterring conflict in the future. A 350-ship Navy
is a minimal investment in ensuring our Nation's strategic priorities.
I urge that our NDAA does a good job in arresting our national
security's general decline. With the increases in force structure for
the Army and the Marine Corps and a 2.1 percent pay raise for our
servicemembers, these are good first steps, but we have a long way to
go with getting our military ready to defend our Nation. With the
election of President-elect Trump, I am optimistic as to our ability to
make our military truly great again.
With this being my last NDAA, I want to thank all the members of the
House Armed Services Committee and, most specifically, Ranking Member
Joe Courtney. I have often said that our Seapower and Projection Forces
Subcommittee is likely the most bipartisan subcommittee in Congress,
and I think that Ranking Member Courtney has been a resolute supporter
of our national security. I will miss working with him on a daily basis
to improve our Nation's military.
Once again, I thank Chairman Thornberry and urge my colleagues to
support the National Defense Authorization Act.
{time} 1015
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support for the
2017 defense bill conference report.
This bill is the result of extraordinary work by Chairman Thornberry
and Ranking Member Smith, who, despite the extremely polarized
environment of the 114th Congress, have managed to produce two
bipartisan defense bills this year and last. The degree of
[[Page H7125]]
difficulty accomplishing that feat cannot be overstated. I congratulate
them both.
As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces, I am particularly pleased with the final bill. Working
together, the members of our subcommittee produced a strong mark that
makes important investments in new shipbuilding as well as introducing
new acquisition reform that will strengthen our Navy. Nine new ships
are authorized in the final bill, continuing to boost the numbers of
our fleet that is on a path to 308 ships by 2021. As the Secretary of
the Navy has publicly stated, the Department is on the verge of
releasing a new naval force structure assessment that will call for
raising that target even higher. Today's bill provides a sound footing
to take on that task with enough work in the shipyards that produce
amphibs, destroyers, and submarines to go to a higher level in short
order.
To be clear, our subcommittee did not just rubberstamp the
administration's budget. For example, the agreement pluses up critical
advanced procurement funding for the Virginia class submarine program
to ensure that the two-a-year build rate continues on its current pace.
Given the important role that our submarines play in our Nation's
defense, we cannot let that build rate slip by underfunding advanced
procurement.
This agreement also authorizes a new national security multimission
vessel that will replace the aging training ships at our Nation's
maritime academies. This program is vital to ensuring that we retain a
maritime workforce in the future, and this agreement puts us on that
path.
I am particularly pleased that the measure also includes language
that I helped to author with Chairman Forbes in the House bill to
enhance the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. Our language adds new
authorities to the fund that will help reduce costs in the Ohio
Replacement Submarine by procuring and building key components in an
efficient level-loaded manner.
The Navy estimates that we could save as much as 25 percent of the
total cost of the missile compartment alone with this new authority. At
a time when we are looking to grow the fleet while also meeting the
multigenerational commitment of Ohio replacement, this approach to
reducing costs in shipbuilding is absolutely vital.
I want to conclude by saluting Chairman Forbes as he begins a new
chapter in his life. I have seen firsthand the impact that he has made
on our fleet, our shipbuilding industry, and, most importantly, the
lives of sailors, marines, airmen, and mariners touched by his work,
which has always been conducted in a bipartisan manner. I thank him for
his service and express my hope that we will see him continue his work
in these areas in whatever opportunity comes his way next.
I also want to salute the staff, and in particular Lieutenant
Commander Jonathan Cebik, who is a Navy fellow in my office who is
finishing up his duties in the next few days or so. He did great work
in terms of advising not just my office, but also the subcommittee.
I thank all the Members of our panel for their hard work on this
year's defense bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
agreement.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Mac
Thornberry for yielding. I am grateful for his success in promoting
peace through strength.
I am in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act of
2017. Generations of my family have served our Nation in uniform. My
father was a Flying Tiger in India and China during World War II. I
served for 31 years in the Army Reserve and South Carolina Army Guard.
I am grateful to have four sons who have served in the military
overseas in the global war on terrorism.
I know firsthand the positive impact this year's NDAA will have on
our troops, veterans, and military families. After passing this bill, I
look forward to telling my constituents at Fort Jackson, adjacent to
McEntire Joint Air Base, neighboring Fort Gordon, and the thousands of
veterans and countless families concerned about the safety of our
citizens that Congress has done its job, just as it has for the past 54
years, by passing a defense authorization bill.
In this bill, readiness is first, protecting our servicemembers
overseas and on training missions at home. Cybersecurity is enhanced,
protecting American families and encouraging public-private
partnerships. We are fully resourcing our Special Operations Forces and
providing critical support to fight Islamic terrorists, including
counter-propaganda measures. We have increased oversight by requiring a
report from the President on Iran as it aggressively acts on ICBMs.
This bill is clear, if our enemies attack our soldiers and American
families with new and unconventional attacks, we will ensure our
military has the tools to respond. As chairman of the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats and Capabilities, I am very grateful as a military
veteran and as a grateful dad that this is a very positive NDAA.
I would like to close again by thanking Chairman Thornberry for his
remarkable persistence throughout this year's reforms. We also have
been fortunate to have the visionary leadership of subcommittee
chairman Randy Forbes, who has successfully promoted a vibrant Navy. I
additionally want to thank our ranking members Adam Smith and Jim
Langevin for their bipartisan manner. This bill will enable President-
elect Donald Trump and the incoming Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to
establish peace through strength.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Readiness.
(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Thornberry and Ranking
Member Smith and the committee staff who have worked many, many long
nights on this year's defense bill.
This conference report provides funding levels that work to address
readiness shortfalls, a process that takes time and will continue to
require stable, consistent funding. Unfortunately, that is something
that we are not afforded under sequestration and reliance on continuing
resolutions.
I also appreciated the efforts to fight in conference for the
provisions that were important to the territory of Guam. In particular,
I am pleased that the restrictions are lifted for remaining water and
wastewater civilian infrastructure projects, as well as for the
construction associated with the cultural artifact repository, and that
military infrastructure projects were authorized at the President's
budget request level.
I thank again Ranking Member Smith for working with me to get a
provision through conference mandating a review of distinguished Asian
American and Pacific Islander veterans who may have been unjustly
overlooked in the Medal of Honor consideration. We must never overlook
the past contributions of our brave men and women in uniform.
To that end, I am also heartened to see the inclusion of the Guam war
claims. It is time that we bring resolution to the people of Guam after
70 years and all U.S. citizens who have suffered under enemy occupation
during World War II. We have advanced this legislation this far in the
past numerous times, but I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will
also pass this critical legislation. Ultimately, finding an offset for
this legislation has helped to bring resolution to the matter. The
people of Guam deserve to close this chapter in our history.
I look forward to this bill passing the House as well as the Senate
before being signed into law by the President later this month.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Turner), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on
Tactical Air and Land Forces.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
Mr. Speaker, consideration of this important bill comes at a critical
time
[[Page H7126]]
for our Nation and for our military. Under the leadership of Chairman
Thornberry, this bill, if funded, begins the process of rebuilding our
military and restoring readiness back into the force. The bill stops
the harmful end-strength reductions in our military service and it
begins the process of reversing this damaging trend in reducing our
military capacity. I thank Chris Gibson, my colleague, for his efforts
in ending those end-strength reductions.
The bill provides an additional $600 million to address shortfalls of
critical munitions. I want to repeat that. We had to put in $600
million to address shortfalls in munitions. That is how much we are
suffering in our military in spending.
The bill also continues to address the needs of the National Guard
and Reserve components by authorizing an additional $250 million for
equipment modernization for the Guard and the Reserve. Additionally,
this bill calls for continued action to eradicate sexual assault in the
military by providing greater transparency in the military criminal
justice system. It also acknowledges the need for intensive treatment
for male victims and continues to address the critical issues of
retaliation.
This bill also includes important provisions on the protection of
child custody rights of our members of the Armed Forces. However, it is
important to note that the military services submitted over $22 billion
of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2017 alone. I had hoped we
would be able to address these modernization shortfalls, as we did in
the House-passed bill. This bill falls short of the House-passed bills.
It is also essential that we begin to correct these funding shortfalls
in the next Congress. Currently we have a lack of readiness and a
heightened level of risk.
I look forward to working with the new Trump administration in
regards to an early supplemental request to fully fund these
requirements, and I would expect that the House-passed bill would be
used as the minimum starting point in order to start the process for
rebuilding our military and working with our allies to create
conditions for credible U.S. deterrence. It saddens me that we might
pass this bill fully funding the military and then pass a CR that
underfunds our military.
Before I conclude, I thank our subcommittee's ranking member, Ms.
Loretta Sanchez, who has truly been my dear friend. She will be sorely
missed. I will miss her guidance and her friendship.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Thornberry
and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership during this process.
The conference report includes many provisions that will provide the
military services flexibility to recruit and retain members of our
Armed Forces and to continue our commitment to taking care of military
families. One provision I would like to highlight expands maternity
leave for military members up to 12 weeks in conjunction with the birth
of a child and authorizes 6 weeks of leave for the primary caregiver in
the case of adoption. For the first time, it also grants 21 days to the
secondary caregiver for both the birth of a child and adoption.
The conference report also begins to reform and modernize the
military healthcare system by standardizing military treatment
facilities across the services and increasing access for beneficiaries.
The conference report reforms TRICARE into an HMO and a PPO system,
but, unfortunately, it establishes a two-fee structure for the next 50
years, thus creating an inequity in a defined benefit for military
retirees. I sincerely hope we can continue to work towards a better
solution in the future.
Although it is not perfect, this bill is a necessary step toward
ensuring our servicemembers, retirees, and their families continue to
receive the best, the most efficient, and the most economical health
care possible.
While I do agree with the increase in end strength for the military
services in the conference report, I am still concerned about how it is
paid for, especially with a possible continuing resolution until April.
If the fiscal year 2017 defense appropriations bill does not contain
the $3.2 billion in OCO for this increase, the services, particularly
the Army, may be forced to reprogram from other critical accounts or
give pink slips to dedicated soldiers.
Lastly, I thank Chairman Joe Heck for his 2 years of leadership and
bipartisanship on the subcommittee. His dedication to working with me
and other members of the subcommittee on behalf of our servicemen and -
women and their families is a credit to himself and his values as a
public servant. I will miss working with him.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces.
(Mr. ROGERS of Alabama asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman for his
leadership in bringing the 55th consecutive NDAA across the finish
line. This legislation includes vital provisions, such as a pay raise
for our troops, a fix to the end strength, and it begins to address the
readiness crisis that is literally claiming the lives of our men and
women in uniform.
A special thank-you goes to my friend, the subcommittee ranking
member, Mr. Cooper. He is a pleasure to work with--Roll Tide.
The conference report includes critical provisions resulting from
oversight of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. For example,
regarding the national security space, it enables a rational transition
to the end of our reliance on the Russian RD-180 engine. The agreement
prioritizes funding for U.S. replacement of the RD-180 engine. It
rejects the Air Force strategy to pay for three new launch systems to
commercial providers. In fact, the Air Force should only hold its
industry day and take no further action until the new administration
has a chance to conduct a full cost policy and legal analysis. It gives
the Air Force one final opportunity to meet warfighter requirements and
bring order to the Department's space-based weather collection program.
Concerning our nuclear forces and nuclear enterprise, the conference
report prohibits funding for the administration's misguided proposal to
accelerate dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons, authorizes an
additional $100 million in funding to help pay for and address the
massive infrastructure problems and deferred maintenance backlogs in
the NSA, and gives the Air Force one final chance to appropriately
prioritize the strategic missile warning system.
Concerning missile defense, the conference report restricts funding
for the Army's Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense radar modernization
program. The chief wanted more acquisition authority. The bill gives it
to him, and I expect him to use it.
{time} 1030
I am also proud to see the conference report includes language to
repeal the cold war-minded National Missile Defense Act, which sought
to limit U.S. missile defense deployments. It provides full funding of
the request of our allies in Israel for $600 million for co-development
and coproduction of Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow 3.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking Ranking Member Smith,
Chairman Thornberry, and Chairman Wilson for their tireless work on
this bill, as well as all the work on behalf of the staff of the full
Armed Services Committee and my personal staff, Kathryn Mitchell and
Amanda Donegan.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to be proud of in the conference report
before us today. This legislation both provides for the needs of our
warfighters and ultimately takes strong steps towards strengthening our
national security.
The Emerging Threats and Capabilities portion of the NDAA, which I
serve as ranking member of, first and foremost recognizes the
importance of the cyber domain. After careful consideration, my
colleagues and I came to the
[[Page H7127]]
conclusion that the execution of cyberspace operations and the
readiness of the Cyber Mission Forces warrants a new unified combatant
command, now currently a sub-unified command under STRATCOM.
The bill reiterates the importance of transparency and regular
updates to Congress on cyber operations, internal policies and
authorities, and other relevant issues and activities. This sets the
stage for creating a formalized framework for oversight of U.S. Cyber
Command next year.
The legislation also formalizes the relationship between the
principal cyber adviser to the Secretary of Defense and Cyber Command,
aiding the successful execution of their respective roles and
responsibilities. We have come to realize how important these
distinctions are to both parties. Thus, the bill clarifies the roles
and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict.
Now, on research and development, my ETC colleagues and I strive to
champion innovation wherever possible, so this bill authorizes a
demonstration pilot program that allows select DOD laboratory directors
more flexibility in the day-to-day operations of their labs. This will
ensure they can use best management practices to advance science and
technology breakthroughs with greater levels of agility.
As directed energy technologies continue to mature and may be ready
to be fielded in the near future, the bill designates a senior official
within the DOD for coordination of directed energy efforts to reduce
redundancy, leverage lessons learned, and advance key policy
considerations for uses of such technology.
Earlier this year, the Global Engagement Center was created by
executive order within the State Department and tasked with
coordinating U.S. counterterrorism messaging with our allies around the
world. This year, the ETC portion of the bill formally authorizes the
Global Engagement Center and expands the scope of its mission to
include countering propaganda of state actors by permitting the DOD to
transfer funds to the organization. Mr. Speaker, it is time we counter
the dangerous rhetoric both ISIL and Russia are using to influence
populations across the world and here at home.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation continues to address the
critical policies and programs within the scope of emerging threats and
capabilities. Beyond that, I am also particularly pleased that this
bill makes the necessary investments in our Navy's nuclear submarine
force, the most survivable leg of the triad. The Virginia class
submarine and the Ohio Replacement class submarine are critical to our
Nation's defense, and I am very pleased that they are prioritized and
properly resourced in this legislation.
I want to again thank the leadership of Chairman Thornberry, Ranking
Member Smith, and Chairman Wilson, and I thank my colleagues for their
work on this bill.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on
Readiness.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of S. 2943,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
First, I would like to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member
Smith for their leadership here, and also our Readiness Subcommittee
ranking member, Ms. Madeleine Bordallo. I thank them so much for all of
their help and constant and tireless efforts in this endeavor. The
efforts behind the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act were truly
bipartisan.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the year, we heard testimony from all of our
service branches about the necessity to address our military's alarming
readiness shortfalls. Their accounts were sobering, to say the least.
We now confront the maintenance, sustainment, and readiness issues that
we put off until tomorrow. Today, we have the responsibility of
reducing the risk for our warfighters by making sure that they are
well-trained and have combat-ready equipment.
There are a number of provisions in this conference report that aim
to bolster our military readiness. In addition to the pay raise and
increases in end strength, this report directs several assessments of
the military departments' plans to rebuild readiness, enhance
exercises, and modernize training requirements. It also provides for
increased military construction above the President's budget request.
It provides the Department of Defense with flexibility for hiring
civilians to fill critical manpower capability gaps, in particular, at
our defense industrial base facilities: our depots, arsenals, and
shipyards. It increases funding to the military service operations and
maintenance accounts, critical elements we need to do to restore
readiness.
None of these readiness provisions were included arbitrarily. They
were specifically targeted to begin to reverse the decline in the
readiness of our Armed Forces and bring them closer to achieving full-
spectrum readiness levels. That is an absolute must if we are to combat
and deter the threats to our national security from around the world.
Mr. Speaker, in that vein, I strongly urge support for S. 2943, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, and encourage
my colleagues in the House to support it as well.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member on the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and who also was enormously
helpful with a number of different aspects of this bill. I appreciate
his help and support in that.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
I have the honor of representing the Hampton Roads area of Virginia,
the heart of our Nation's shipbuilding industrial base. I want to
underscore my support for the shipbuilding and ship maintenance
provisions in the bill, including the language urging the Secretary of
the Navy to speed up the procurement schedule for aircraft carriers to
ensure that our carrier fleet is not again reduced to just 10 carriers.
These provisions will not only significantly benefit my region, but
will be critical to our Nation's security.
I want to particularly commend my colleague from Virginia, the chair
of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, Mr. Forbes, and the
ranking member of that subcommittee, Mr. Courtney, for their hard work
on the shipbuilding aspects of the bill.
As ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I
am pleased to see that the final conference report eliminated three
matters of grave concern that would have adversely affected working
conditions for shipyard workers and employees of government
contractors.
The first provision eliminated from the bill would have severely
undermined the workers' compensation benefits that many shipyard
workers now receive. A second problematic provision would have
authorized taxpayer-funded employment discrimination. A third provision
eliminated from the bill would have significantly diminished the
application of the executive order on fair pay and safe workplaces.
This order will now remain in effect and it will help level the playing
field so that those contractors who willfully and repeatedly violate
workplace safety, labor, and civil rights laws will not gain
competitive advantages over those law-abiding contractors who
faithfully comply with employment laws.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the exceptional effort
made by the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Smith, with the
cooperation of the chair of the committee, Mr. Thornberry, to produce a
bill that addresses the defense needs of our Nation, but also ensures
that workers are treated fairly.
Before addressing matters of concern to the Education and the
Workforce Committee, I want to underscore my strong support for the
shipbuilding and ship maintenance provisions. I have the honor of
representing Hampton Roads, Virginia, the heart of our nation's
shipbuilding industrial base. I strongly support the conference
report's shipbuilding and ship maintenance provisions, specifically
language urging the Secretary of the Navy to speed up the procurement
schedule for aircraft carriers to ensure that our carrier fleet is not
again reduced to 10 carriers. These provisions in the
[[Page H7128]]
conference report will not only significantly benefit my region, but
will be critical for our nation's security. I'd like to commend
Congressman Forbes and Congressman Courtney for their efforts on this
area.
As a conferee and Ranking Member of the Education and the Workforce
Committee, I was pleased to see that the final conference report
eliminated matters of grave concern.
First, the Conference Report removed Section 3512 of the House bill
which redefined ``recreational vessels'' across almost all statutes.
The aim of this provision was to exempt workers repairing vessels
over 65 feet in length from coverage under the Longshore and Harbor
Workers Act (LHWCA), such as very large yachts and luxury watercraft.
By stripping injured workers of the protections under LWHCA, these
workers would have been shifted into coverage under state workers'
compensation laws. Many state workers' compensation benefit levels are
substantially inferior to LHWCA coverage, especially in states such as
Florida.
Earlier this year, the Florida Supreme Court found that the Florida
workers' compensation law was unconstitutional because the duration of
disability benefits was so truncated and the benefit levels so anemic
that they did not constitute ``a system of redress'' that ``functions
as a reasonable alternative to tort litigation.''
Both the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) opposed Section 3512.
The DOL noted that Section 3512 would ``lead to uncertainty and
foster litigation regarding Longshore Act coverage'' because the new
definition of ``recreational'' vessel introduced subjective criteria.
For example, would vessels with paid crews or which are leased out for
commercial purposes be deemed recreational or commercial? DOL also
expressed concern that this ``legislation will simply encourage
employers to shift their employees out of the more protective federal
longshore workers' compensation system,'' and into inferior state
workers' comp coverage.
The Coast Guard noted changing the definition of ``recreational
vessel'' under Section 4301 of Title 46 (the Federal Boat Safety Act of
1971) would have adverse impacts on Coast Guard regulatory and
enforcement authorities.
Second, I was pleased to see that Impact Aid has been preserved for
Local Educational Agencies consistent with past precedent.
Third, there were two provisions that adversely impacted employee
protections in the workplace, which were deleted in the conference
report.
One such provision was Section 1094 of the House bill, which was
misleadingly labeled ``Protections Relating to Civil Rights and
Disabilities'' authorized taxpayer-funded employment discrimination in
every grant, cooperative agreement, contract, subcontract, and purchase
order awarded by every Federal agency doing business with a religiously
affiliated organization.
Section 1094 would effectively nullify the protections from workplace
discrimination for LGBT workers that were provided in Executive Order
13672 (Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors) that was signed on
July 21, 2014.
Further, the provision would incorporate an exemption from the
Americans with Disabilities Act that could permit taxpayer-funded
discrimination not only against employees and applicants who are not
members of the same religion, but also against those who fail to adhere
to the organization's religious tenets.
Accordingly, religious organizations in receipt of federal dollars
could use their religious viewpoint to: discharge working women who use
birth control or who is pregnant and unmarried; fire employees who
engage in premarital sex; deny employment or health benefits to married
same-sex couples that they already provide to married opposite-sex
couples; or refuse to consider for employment anyone, however
qualified, whose religion is inconsistent with the employer's religious
tenets.
Ninety-one religious, education, civil rights, labor, and women's
organizations wrote to express their opposition in a letter dated
August 25, 2016. The groups noted that: ``effective government
collaboration with faith-based groups does not require the sanctioning
of federally funded religious discrimination.''
I am pleased that the conference report did not authorize religious
employers to discriminate in hiring using federal funds. I want to
applaud Senator Blumenthal for his leadership in helping to remove this
provision.
In addition, Sections 1095 of the House bill and Section 829-I of the
Senate bill would have eliminated or diminished the application of the
``Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces'' Executive Order.
This executive order requires companies to disclose whether they have
engaged in serious, repeated, willful or pervasive violations of any of
14 long-standing labor laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Vietnam Era Veterans
Readjustment Assistance Act, and nondiscrimination laws.
Each year, thousands of federal contractor workers are deprived of
overtime wages, denied basic workplace protections, forced to endure
illegal discrimination, and made to tolerate unwarranted health and
safety risks. Companies supported by and entrusted with federal
government contracts should be expected to represent the gold standard
in the American workplace.
The executive order aims to level the playing field so that those who
repeatedly violate those laws do not gain competitive advantage over
those law abiding contractors who expend the funds and make the effort
to ensure full compliance.
Finally, I want to recognize the exceptional effort made by Ranking
Member Smith and his staff to work with the Education and Workforce
Committee to produce a final bill that meets the defense needs of this
nation and also ensures workers are treated fairly.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gibson), a member of the conference committee and a
combat veteran who has played a key role in formulating this bill.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference
report. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
leadership.
This may very well be the most significant piece of legislation to
come out of the House Armed Services Committee since Goldwater-Nichols.
I say that for five reasons:
One, it reforms the strategic planning process, reclaiming Article 1,
section 8 responsibility for the Congress with regard to providing
strategic guidance.
Two, it empowers the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I think
this is really important for unity of effort, efficient use of
resources, and, quite frankly, also for civil military relations.
Three, bold acquisition reforms; it has been mentioned in terms of
agility, transparency, and accountability. We bring forward major
reforms here, and, quite frankly, we are empowering the services. This
is some of the testimony we received, and, in the process, we have
provided incentives and also consequences for noncompliance. I think
this is all going to be good news for the taxpayers who are counting on
us to get this right.
Four, decisive steps to improve readiness. We are entering a new era,
Mr. Speaker. The drawdown is over; in fact, we are increasing end
strength. I think this is really important.
On a congressional delegation trip I led this summer listening to the
commanders in the European Command, including the Supreme Allied
Commander of Europe, this bill and all the resources that come with it
are going to help strengthen deterrence. This is also a good bill for
NATO.
I mentioned resources. This was so important to the Joint Chiefs and
to their senior enlisted advisers. They said they welcomed the end
strength, but it had to come with the resources. They did not want to
hollow out the force. We have listened and we have done this.
Money for training; it is a very dangerous business, and it is
important the training be realistic. We have reinforced the account for
the CTCs, flying hours, and the spare parts to come with it.
Five, Mr. Speaker, the pay raise, which is so justifiably earned.
I am proud of this bill. I want to thank the staff. The staff on both
sides of the aisle are second to none, and it has been a great
privilege to serve on this committee.
God bless this Nation.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time
each side has remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 13 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas also has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), a member of the committee.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the
committee, Mr. Thornberry; the ranking member, Mr. Smith; and the
members, my colleagues, for an exceptional piece of work here. This is
an extremely important bill. I do support it;
[[Page H7129]]
however, I do have some reservations. I would like to speak to at least
one of them at the moment.
I want to bring to the attention of the Members section 671 of the
NDAA concerning the ongoing bonus clawback issue affecting thousands of
California National Guardsmen. While I am pleased that a permanent
legislative fix is one step closer to the President's desk, I think
some of the language needs to be clarified further to ensure that
guardsmen are treated fairly.
First and foremost, I have concerns with the standard use to
determine if a guardsman's debt should be waived or not. The current
language says the DOD needs to produce a preponderance of evidence to
demonstrate fraud on the part of the guardsman and withhold their
bonus.
What does that mean in practice? We are not sure. This is vague and
subject to interpretation. I believe this standard must be better
defined, and we will continue to work on that in the future.
I am also concerned about subsection (c)(1)(B), which gives the
Department of Defense far too much leeway in determining which cases
warrant review. Though Secretary Carter has pledged to review every
case, this gives DOD the option of ignoring about 2,000 cases. That
would be a problem.
Our job isn't yet done. There will be a hearing next week on this
issue. We will attempt to get further clarification to protect those
men and women who accepted a bonus, went to war, performed their
duties, and are now subject to a clawback. That should not happen.
One more thing to bring to the attention of the committee is the
strategic arms portion of this bill, which continues a trillion-dollar
project of recapitalizing our entire nuclear arsenal. We should pay
attention to that in the future. It is extraordinarily expensive and
dangerous.
{time} 1045
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the distinguished chair of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, for the purpose of a
colloquy.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for
his leadership on this bill, as well as Ranking Member Smith, and the
hardworking dedicated staff. This is a great bill. It is a win for our
troops and it is a win for national defense, and I fully support it.
I do want to also convey, though, my concern about and the importance
of the Russell amendment, which passed this House but was not in the
final bill. The attacks on this commonsense language have been
dishonest and grossly inaccurate. The truth is that this language uses
existing Federal civil rights laws to clarify hiring practices of
religious organizations when they partner with the government through
grants and contracts.
Religious charities are selfless and crucial providers who often go
where no one else will go to help the vulnerable. They resettle
refugees, counsel victims of sex trafficking, pray for soldiers in war
zones, and comfort veterans suffering from PTSD. The White House has
lauded these partnerships with the government, and Senate Democrats
included a nearly identical provision in ENDA in 2013, a bill which
most of the Senators publicly opposing this provision voted for in the
past.
We need to protect these basic rights and preserve these vital
partnerships, and I look forward to working with the chairman next
Congress to address these most basic of interests.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. HARTZLER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the importance of
this issue to House majority conferees. For many years, organizations
of faith have been able to both contract with the Federal Government
and hire according to their faith practices. That has been especially
true with religious universities, chaplain services, and refugee
service providers; yet executive action under the current
administration has created a direct conflict between the White House
policy and these longstanding legal protections for these
organizations' religious tenets.
While the NDAA was always an imperfect vehicle for this discussion,
majority conferees believe that these executive orders must be
reviewed; and we look forward to working directly with the incoming
administration to address the concerns, not just for DOD, but for the
government nationwide.
I certainly appreciate the leadership of the gentlewoman from
Missouri on these very issues.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for the purpose of a colloquy with
the chairman, Mr. Thornberry.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding
and wish to engage the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, in a colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, let me first start by thanking the chairman and the
committee staff again for working diligently with us to address a
number of provisions important to our territory, our island, and U.S.
posture in the Asia-Pacific region.
I especially appreciate your support for our efforts to address
workforce issues through the inclusion in the House bill of a targeted
remedy for the H-2B visa denial issue particularly affecting military
health care and construction projects on Guam.
Though the House Judiciary majority and minority approved the
language, it is my understanding that the provision was not included in
the final conference agreement due to concerns raised by the Senate
Judiciary majority. As we look toward next year, will the chairman
commit to working with me to address this issue to ensure the
realignment of U.S. Marines to Okinawa is not adversely impacted?
Mr. THORNBERRY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BORDALLO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THORNBERRY. First, I want to thank the distinguished ranking
member of the Readiness Subcommittee for her hospitality. I learned a
lot about the issue that she raises during my recent visit to Guam. I
understand the workforce issues there much better, as well as the
unacceptable impacts it is already having on our military activity on
Guam.
Our strategic presence there, Mr. Speaker, and the U.S. Marine
realignment are critical national security interests, and this issue
must be addressed soon. We need to ensure an adequate workforce is
available to support the current military presence, as well as the
activity associated with the increase to come; and I look forward to
continuing to work with the gentlewoman from Guam and with the Members
on the other side of the Capitol to find an acceptable solution in the
coming year.
Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate that he took the
time to stop on Guam in October to see and understand the strategic
value of our island and also better understand, firsthand, some of the
unique challenges. It was a real honor, his visit, for the people of
Guam, and I thank both the chairman and our Ranking Member Smith for
their assistance.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Heck), the distinguished chair of the Military Personnel
Subcommittee.
Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
conference report to S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act of
2017.
This conference report contains significant policy and funding
priorities to continue our commitment to maintaining the readiness of
our military personnel and their families.
Included in this conference report are many important initiatives:
Specifically, it provides a fully funded pay raise. This is the
largest pay raise for our military in the last 5 years and the first
full pay raise in 4 years. After 3 years of lower pay raises than
allowed by law, it is time that we give our troops and their families
the pay increase they deserve.
It stops the troop reductions in our Armed Forces, thereby increasing
readiness, while reducing the stress and strain on our force and their
families.
It reforms the military health system to ensure that we have a ready
medical force and a medically ready force, while providing a quality
healthcare benefit valued by its beneficiaries.
[[Page H7130]]
It modernizes the Uniform Code of Military Justice to improve the
system's efficiency and transparency, while also enhancing victims'
rights.
It reforms the commissary system in a way that preserves this
valuable benefit, while also improving it so that the system remains an
excellent value for the shoppers and a good value for taxpayer dollars.
In conclusion, I want to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Davis), for her contributions and support in this
process. It has truly been an honor and a pleasure to work with her.
I also want to thank the subcommittee members and offer my sincere
appreciation for the hard work and dedication of the subcommittee
staff.
Lastly, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Thornberry), for his support and for entrusting me with the great
privilege and honor of chairing this subcommittee.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the conference report to S.
2943.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I rise
in support of the conference report to S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
This act is designed to meet the threats we face today as well as in
the future, and I thank the chairman of the committee from Texas, as
well as the ranking member from Washington, both having worked together
in this enormous task to be able to defend our Nation.
The results of our work here today will reflect our strong commitment
to ensure the men and women of our armed services receive the benefits
and support that they deserve for their faithful service. Building on
these efforts, this bill contains initiatives designed to provide
resources and support for these men and women.
This legislation recognizes the reality that we live in a dangerous
world where threats are not always easily identifiable and our enemies
are not bound by borders. Confronting this type of enemy deserves a
well-prepared, ready military, which I strongly support.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted and very pleased that the work that we
did together with the chairman and the ranking member, amendments that
I offered, are in this legislation:
The Jackson Lee amendment expressing the sense of Congress regarding
the importance of increasing the effectiveness of NORTHCOM in
fulfilling its critical mission of protecting the U.S. homeland in the
event of war, and to provide support to local, State, and Federal
authorities that we work with all the time in times of national
emergency.
The Jackson Lee amendment calling for a report on American efforts to
combat Boko Haram in Nigeria and the countries in the Lake Chad region
by way of provision of technical training and evidence-gathering
strategies, to name a few. Having gone to the region, having been
dealing with the missing Chibok girls for, now, some 4 years plus, we
know devastation there.
The Jackson Lee amendment requiring the Department of Defense to
conduct outreach programs to assist small-business concerns owned and
controlled by women, veterans, and social and economic minorities.
And the Jackson Lee amendment requiring annual report to Congress
listing the most common grounds for sustaining protests including and
relating to bids.
This is important to pass this legislation, Mr. Speaker.
And let me just personally thank the gentleman from Washington for
always welcoming Members and the ideas and needs that they have for
their districts, but also for this Nation. We are better for it, and we
are better that we are preparing the men and women of the United States
military to keep them safe.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report to S. 2943,
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.''
The National Defense Authorization Act is designed to meet the
threats we face today as well as into the future.
The results of our work here today will reflect our strong commitment
to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Services receive the
benefits and support that they deserve for their faithful service.
Building on our efforts from previous years, this bill contains a
number of initiatives designed to provide the resources and support
needed for the men and women who keep our nation safe.
This legislation recognizes the reality that we live in a dangerous
world, where threats are not always easily identifiable, and our
enemies are not bound by borders.
Confronting this unique type of enemy requires unique capabilities.
As we have seen time and time again, our military has the ability to
track down violent extremists who wish to do our country harm,
regardless of where they reside.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that four of my amendments adopted during
House consideration of the NDAA are included in the final legislation
or in language in the accompanying report:
1. Jackson Lee Amendment expressing the sense of Congress regarding
the importance of increasing the effectiveness of the Northern Command
(``NORTHCOM'') in fulfilling its critical mission of protecting the
U.S. homeland in the event of war and to provide support to local,
state, and federal authorities in limes of national emergency or in the
event of an invasion.
2. Jackson Lee Amendment calling for a report on American efforts to
combat Boko Haram in Nigeria and the countries in the Lake Chad Basin,
by way of provision of technical training and evidence gathering
strategies to name a few.
3. Jackson Lee Amendment requiring the Department of Defense to
conduct outreach program to assist small business concerns owned and
controlled by women, veterans, and socially and economically
minorities.
4. Jackson Lee Amendment requiring annual report to Congress listing
the most common grounds for sustaining protests relating to bids for
contracts.
The passing of this bill today brings us one step closer to enacting
the 54th consecutive National Defense Authorization Act.
This particular bill is seen as the gold standard for Congressional
bipartisanship and transparency.
Despite disagreements on key issues, Members have not failed to reach
consensus on behalf of our fighting men and women.
I am proud of the work we have done here today.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a valued member of the committee.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report to accompany S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017. Congress has upheld its constitutional duty to
``provide for the common defense'' by passing the NDAA 55 years in a
row, and I am looking forward to making this the 56th.
This bipartisan bill contains a number of vitally important
provisions to support our troops deployed overseas, stop the dangerous
drawdown of the military, and begin rebuilding our force for the
future. It increases the end strength of our Armed Forces, gives our
troops a substantial pay raise, and maintains restrictions on the
administration's ability to bring terrorist detainees from Guantanamo
to U.S. soil.
One provision I am particularly proud of is the Joint Trauma
Education and Training Directorate. Too often we take for granted the
readiness of our military healthcare teams, doctors, and surgeons when,
in reality, their skills and knowledge are earned through work in
grueling, dangerous conditions and must be maintained through frequent
practice.
The Joint Trauma Education and Training Directorate will support
partnerships, allowing military trauma surgeons and physicians to embed
within civilian trauma centers to treat critically injured patients,
maintaining medical readiness and deployability for future armed
conflicts. By connecting the Department of Defense with civilian
hospitals, these partnerships will serve the needs of our military
medical professionals and our local communities, to the benefit of the
whole Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member for yielding
and for his tremendous leadership on so many of these very critical
issues.
[[Page H7131]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise, though, in strong opposition to the National
Defense Authorization Act, which would authorize another $618 billion
in spending to our already out-of-control defense budget. It would also
expand funding for wars that Congress has never debated. Once again, my
Republican colleagues have used an off-the-books spending gimmick to
further expand the already-bloated Pentagon budget.
Enough is enough. Instead of writing blank checks to the Pentagon,
Congress needs to live up to its constitutional obligation to debate
matters of war and peace. We need to rip up the 2001 blank check for
endless war. We need to stop funding wars without end, with no debate
on the costs and consequences to our troops or to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I do have to say that I am pleased that my amendment,
which I coauthored with my good friend Congressman Burgess, to report
on the audit-readiness of the Pentagon, that amendment passed, but much
work remains.
So I call on our Speaker to act to bring some accountability to
Pentagon spending and to bring forth an authorization to use force to
support or oppose these new wars. We need to do our job.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and reject this
wasteful spending.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Stefanik), the distinguished vice chair of the
Subcommittee on Readiness.
Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for the FY17 NDAA conference report.
I want to first thank Chairman Thornberry for his dedication and
continuous support for our troops and for his leadership during the
conference committee process.
I am proud to support this critical bill that truly hits home for my
district and for our brave men and women in uniform across our great
Nation. My district is the proud home of Fort Drum, and this bill
provides for the ongoing combat operations where troops from the 10th
Mountain Division continue to selflessly serve. It also fully supports
our Navy's nuclear community, from operational capabilities, to nuclear
training sites at Ballston Spa, New York.
{time} 1100
One of the most important provisions is a full 2.1 percent pay raise
for our troops--to our Nation's dedicated and brave servicemembers who
risk it all to provide us with protection and security--and to their
loved ones who are anxiously awaiting their return.
This bill also prevents a possible readiness crisis by investing in
our military personnel and preserving their expertise.
In order for our military to continue its superiority in any
battlefield and through countless combat deployments, this bill ends
the misguided drawdown of troops. It ensures we have the land forces
end strength to face the world's challenges and protect our Nation.
Every day I am grateful and humbled to represent so many brave men
and women in uniform and their resilient loved ones. I encourage all of
my House colleagues to vote in support of this vital bill.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Ms. McSally) who is a very valued member of our Armed Services
Committee.
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the NDAA.
I thank Chairman Thornberry for his leadership on this issue and being
a member of that committee.
As a retired Air Force colonel and A-10 pilot, I am deeply troubled
by the dangerous atrophying of our military in recent years. For
example, we once had 134 fighter squadrons. Today we have 55. We had
946,000 total force military and civilian airmen, and now we are down
to 660,000. We are short 700 fighter pilots, 4,000 maintainers, and
critical munitions. Yet the world isn't getting any safer.
This bill takes crucial steps to reverse the readiness crisis and
helps ensure our military has the training, manpower, and resources
they need to keep us safe. It increases end strength and funds the
weapons systems we need to take on ISIS and other emerging threats,
such as the Tomahawk missile.
It fully protects the mighty A-10 Warthog, our best close air support
asset. It includes critical language I authored to require a fly-off
between the A-10 and the F-35 before a single A-10 can be retired. It
fully funds the EC-130H Compass Call, the Air Force's only dedicated
electronic warfare asset. It fully funds the vital missions we need for
the future, like cyber, intelligence, and electronic warfare--all of
which are housed at Fort Huachuca in my district.
I am proud to have worked on the committee with Chairman Thornberry
and Chairman McCain on these important issues. I want to thank them for
their leadership. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this critical bill and support our troops.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) who is the distinguished chair of the House
Committee on Small Business, which has made a number of contributions
to this conference report.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of this
conference report because it provides for our national defense and also
supports America's small businesses. As was mentioned, as chairman of
the House Committee on Small Business, I have seen firsthand just how
vital small businesses are in providing the Department of Defense with
the goods and services it needs in a cost-effective and efficient
manner.
Also included within this conference report are contracting reforms
which will provide small businesses with greater access to defense
contracting opportunities, as well as extend such important programs as
the SBIR and the STTR research programs.
Finally, this conference report calls on agencies to provide
cybersecurity resources to small businesses to protect themselves from
cyber attacks which are becoming a greater and greater threat to
businesses all across this country and really all across the world.
I want to thank Chairman Thornberry for his hard work and his
leadership. He has done a tremendous job in getting this crucial
legislation finally across the finish line. I also want to thank all
the members of the Small Business Committee. Many of the small business
provisions included within this report came out of our committee with
strong--if not unanimous--bipartisan support. Working together through
regular order, we have been able to strengthen the small business
industrial base which is so fundamental to the health of our Nation as
a whole.
Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank all the members of Mr.
Thornberry's committee for their hard work on this. It is really a job
well done.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers other than
myself to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
I just want to make three issues, and some of them were raised during
the course of the debate. First of all, I like a lot of what is in this
bill. I think it is also important what is not in this bill. There were
a number of issues that were extraneous to the actual business of
national security that had been put in by one side or the other that,
in conference, we were able to remove. One of the most prominent ones
was one that was raised earlier, the so-called Russell amendment having
to do with the ability of companies and businesses that are receiving
government contracts to discriminate. I was very much opposed to the
Russell amendment. I am happy that we agreed to take it out.
I just want to explain a little bit exactly what it is because it is
really rather simple. All the President accomplished in this is that
there already
[[Page H7132]]
is an executive order saying: if you do business with the Federal
Government, then you cannot discriminate against certain classes of
people. I don't remember all the different classes, but certainly one
of the big ones is you can't discriminate based on race. So in other
words, if your religious tenets are racist--say, for instance, you
don't like Black people and don't employ them and don't want to do
business with them--we, as the Federal Government, have decided that
that is not acceptable, and we will not allow you to do business with
the Federal Government.
All this executive order did was add the LGBT community to those
protected classes. So, basically, what we are saying is: not only is it
not acceptable to be racist, but it is also not acceptable to be
homophobic. I completely agree with that, and I would hope our country
would get to the place where it would agree with that as well; that if
you feel that you must discriminate against people simply based on
their sexual preference, then we are not going to do business with you.
That is a policy that, I think, we should have. That is what the
executive order does.
To reverse that in the Defense bill, I think, would be an
abomination, particularly since we have made such progress within the
Department of Defense. We have finally gotten rid of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell so that gay and lesbian people can serve openly in the military.
They have served in the military for decades, and now they are allowed
to serve openly. We have recently allowed transgender people to serve
openly as well, which I think is a tremendous step forward. The Russell
amendment would take us back.
So, again, I really want to emphasize that all the executive order
does is say that it is not all right to be racist and it is also not
all right to be homophobic. I think that is a principle that we should
stand for as a country.
I want to further add that even within that executive order, there
are many exceptions that already exist. Now, even though I am a lawyer,
and even though lawyers have tried to explain this to me, I don't fully
understand all those exceptions, but religious groups are allowed to
discriminate based on the tenets of their belief within the existing
executive order that was already passed. So even though the people who
were pushing the Russell amendment already have what they want--even
though, in my opinion, they shouldn't--there is no need to further
emphasize the fact that we are going to allow people who do contract
with the Federal Government to discriminate against the LGBT community.
I think that is basically wrong and should not be allowed.
The second point I want to make is on the money. We have heard over
and over again about how underfunded everything is, and I get that. But
we are spending $619 billion on the Department of Defense--far and away
more money than any other country in the world, and we have been
spending more money on defense for decades than any other country in
the world. We ought to be able to build a military that can protect our
national security interests for that amount of money, and not only
should we be able to, we are going to have to because we are $19
trillion in debt. I forget exactly what the deficit is this year, but
it is somewhere in the $500- to $600-billion range.
We have a President coming into office who is promising trillions of
dollars in additional tax cuts. We also have a crumbling infrastructure
in this country, and it is just as important that we maintain the
strength of our country at home--that we have a transportation
infrastructure, an education infrastructure, and a research
infrastructure that continues to make us as strong as it is and that we
have a national security apparatus that will protect our interests
abroad. If we spend all of our money in tax cuts and defense, then we
will wind up with a very hollow country.
We have got to make some tough choices going forward, and I believe
that we can meet our national security needs, frankly, for less money
than we spend. There are greater efficiencies; there are programs that
we don't need to continue with.
Those are the choices that we are going to have to make in the years
ahead because right now we are planning on more programs and more
national security than we could possibly have money for in the next
decade. We cannot continue to duck the tough choices that get us a
national security apparatus and a Department of Defense that we can
actually afford that also provides for our national security.
Lastly, I just want to close where I started and say that the product
of this bill--I don't know how many pages it is this year, but it is a
lot--requires a lot of work, and the people you see sitting behind us
are the staff that do that work tirelessly night after night. It is a
yearlong process to put it together and to negotiate with the Senate to
get there. We have the most outstanding staff that I can imagine. I
want to make sure that we thank them for that incredible work that they
do, not just for us but for the men and women who serve in the
military.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Thornberry. We work in a bipartisan
manner on this committee, and, as many of you are aware, that is not
easy. I have been here 20 years, and the country and this place have
suddenly become more partisan. It has become more and more difficult to
do anything, to pass any kind of bill where Democrats and Republicans
actually work together.
The National Defense Authorization Act is a shining example of the
way the legislative process should work, and many people are to thank
for that, but it all starts with the chairman. It all starts with Mr.
Thornberry and also with Senator McCain on the other side being
dedicated to the principle, number one, of bipartisanship--of working
together--and, number two, to the absolute commitment that we will get
our job done. Sometimes it takes until December. I think we went all
the way up to December 16 a couple of years ago, so we are way ahead of
schedule this year by those standards. Sometimes it takes a long time,
but we always get it done, and it is a credit to those chairmen that we
do.
Mr. Speaker, again, I urge passage of this very important bill, and I
thank the chairman again for his great work and all the staff for the
work they did to make this possible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the distinguished ranking member
that to produce this bill requires a great deal of effort by a number
of people, starting with him, other members of the committee, and other
Members of the House. It is also essential that our staff, who support
our work, be thanked, and he has done a great job of doing that.
I agree with him also about the leadership of Senator John McCain, a
man who, I think, is unique in the country's military history at this
point. His leadership, along with the ranking member, Senator Jack
Reed, has been obviously essential, not only in this bill but in
Congress being able to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.
I know there are disappointments with this bill, Mr. Speaker. There
are things that people would like to see in here, a lot of them not
really core defense issues, but those matters had to be dropped to get
this bill to this point.
I am confident that the new administration will review the executive
orders that the ranking member was talking about and that those
unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment will be reviewed,
modified, or repealed. All of that facilitated getting this bill before
us today.
I am also hopeful that the new administration will send us a
supplemental request, because there are desperately needed
modernization items from ships, airplanes, munitions, and other things
that are not authorized in this bill but are needed desperately by our
troops. So I hope--and I expect--that we will do better in the coming
year to, again, fulfill our responsibilities under the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I would just end with this: I believe the first job of
the Federal Government is to defend the country. The Constitution puts
specific responsibilities on our shoulders to raise, support, provide,
and maintain the military forces of the United States. The most
important part of that responsibility deals with the people, and this
bill, if it is nothing else, supports the men and women who volunteer
to
[[Page H7133]]
risk their lives to defend us and protect our freedoms. For that reason
alone, it deserves the support of every Member of the House. I hope it
will receive that support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against the Conference
Report to Accompany S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 (Roll No. 600). Though the legislation
contains several provisions that I support, and I commend the House and
Senate Armed Services Committee for tackling some difficult issues, I
am concerned about many components of the bill, including the continued
use of a budgetary gimmick to avoid making the tough decisions we need
to make about our defense spending.
This NDAA includes $67.8 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) funding, which isn't subject to budget caps, and $8.3 billion of
this funding would go to base defense budget operations. Congress and
the Administration should not be able to use the account, initially
used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to pad their budgets in
an era of fiscal uncertainty. The legislation also keeps intact funding
for several unnecessary and outdated weapons programs and includes
extraneous funding, unsolicited by the Navy, for an amphibious ship
replacement program known as the LX (R).
The legislation also maintains prohibitions on closing the Guantanamo
Bay detention facility and on transferring any detainees to the United
States. It's past time that we closed this military prison.
Finally, it's concerning that the bill includes new language that
marks a significant shift in U.S. missile defense policy which dates
back to 1999. This adjustment could cement U.S. proliferation of
nuclear weapons, while sending a counterproductive signal to other
countries.
There are provisions of this legislation that I support. I've fought
to defend and strengthen the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV)
program since I helped establish the program with my colleagues in
2009. This legislation extends the program through 2020 and authorizes
an additional 1,500 visas for our allies. Though the bill,
unfortunately, restricts the eligibility of applicants--eligibility
requirements that I sought to remove from the legislation when it was
being considered by the House--I look forward to continue fighting for
the viability of the program next year.
I'm also glad that we're taking a small step towards cost
accountability with the bill's transparency requirements for the Air
Force's new B-21 bomber. I offered an amendment to have the Department
of Defense disclose the total cost of the bomber program in the House
version of the bill.
Though I cannot support this legislation, I will continue to support
our armed forces, while fighting for reductions in the bloated defense
budget.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I will ultimately vote today for the
National Defense Authorization Act because it's a necessity, and I
think it's important we authorize this spending so that procurement,
research, and a host of other long-term projects stay on track.
That's the good news.
The bad is that there are many wrongs tucked into this bill. It
continues to use wartime contingency funds for recurring operations. It
has an earmark for New Balance shoes. I could go on, but I write to
highlight what I think will be the most damaging part of the bill--
exempting women from the draft.
In the spring, Secretary Carter made women eligible for combat roles,
and this was supposedly about equality. This bill goes a step further
and makes it law that woman will be preferentially treated. Doing so is
not good for morale and readiness because troops know you can't have it
both ways in life. Either we are all on the team together and treated
equally--or we are not.
I said in February that the Secretary of Defense's new policy of
opening front-line combat roles to women would unleash political forces
that in the end would make our military weaker. All this could have
been avoided if we had been allowed a national debate, but the
administration rushed to stack up perceived political wins while it
could--and so we are where we are.
What happened in this bill is the first of many inconsistencies that
will come to weaken one of our military's real strengths: its
leadership as an institution in treating people equally as it focuses
on but one outcome--the defense of our nation. It needs to be
remembered that 6 years before Brown vs. Board of Education, the armed
forces had already been desegregated. Actions like this and its focus
on equality of opportunity have something to do with Gallup polls
showing our military as the most respected of American institutions.
The bill creates a daring double standard. Women are now eligible for
combat roles but not the draft. It codifies the draft for men but not
for women at the very time women are now eligible for combat roles. How
is this equal?
To be clear, I'm not a fan of women in a draft or being a part of
Seal Team 6. I just think we should offer equal roads to getting to the
Seal unit, if billets are open to men and women. Our nation asks people
in the elite units to do remarkably rugged things that pose serious
physical challenge. The Marines have actually looked deeply at this and
recently completed a 1,000-page study that concluded that male units
overwhelmingly outperformed integrated units in physical tasks. Indeed,
Navy Seals comprise but 1 percent of the Navy, Force Recon is about the
same within the Marines--while Delta Force numbers are actually
classified, and the problem in the elite forces is that physical
prowess is not a part of what you do; it is part and parcel to what you
do.
There is a reason we don't see a lot of women in the NFL, and if we
really want to try a social experiment, let's make one-third of the
Army football team female and see how it does next year against Navy.
For that matter, my sister is a wonderful woman and a far better shot
than I am, but she can't carry me very far. We begin to affect unit
cohesion when members of a unit believe their counterparts can't carry
them out of a bad spot in which they may have found themselves . . .
but all this is a debate for another day.
The debate that needs to come in the wake of this bill is how we
reconcile equality of opportunity in the military with people in this
bill being treated quite differently. Our nation's defense is not a
social experiment. Lives hang in the balance. For the sake of morale--
so important to what makes our military strong--it's important we
circle back on the draft issue this coming year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 937, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. THORNBERRY. 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, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the conference report will be followed by a
5-minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 375,
nays 34, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 600]
YEAS--375
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Capps
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Evans
Farenthold
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Kuster
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
[[Page H7134]]
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Posey
Price (NC)
Price, Tom
Quigley
Rangel
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--34
Amash
Bass
Becerra
Blumenauer
Capuano
Chu, Judy
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cohen
Conyers
DeSaulnier
Duncan (TN)
Gabbard
Grayson
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Honda
Huffman
Kennedy
Lee
Lewis
Massie
Nadler
Pallone
Pocan
Polis
Schakowsky
Schrader
Takano
Velazquez
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--25
Aguilar
Bishop (UT)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Carney
DeFazio
Ellison
Fincher
Flores
Garrett
Hahn
Jones
Kirkpatrick
Labrador
Lofgren
Love
McDermott
Nugent
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sewell (AL)
Vela
Westmoreland
Williams
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1137
Messrs. POLIS, COHEN, and NADLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. GALLEGO, CICILLINE, and RICHMOND changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for votes on Friday,
December 2, 2016 because I was home in San Bernardino, CA to mark the
one-year anniversary of the terrorist attack in our community. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 600, the
adoption of the Conference Report to accompany S. 2943, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
____________________