[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.

                          ____________________