Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 118 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 118 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5801-H5823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 440 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2810.
Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) kindly resume the
chair.

{time} 1706

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2810) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018
for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes, with Mr. Collins of Georgia (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 10 printed in House
Report 115-217, offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Hartzler), had been postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 115-217 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Buck of Colorado.

[[Page H5802]]

Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 10 by Mrs. Hartzler of Missouri.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Thomas J. Rooney of Florida.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198,
noes 220, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 366]

AYES--198

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Bridenstine
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gomez
Gottheimer
Graves (LA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Hunter
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kinzinger
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (MN)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Mast
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Palazzo
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--220

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beyer
Biggs
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hurd
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
McCarthy
McCaul
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Polis
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--15

Bilirakis
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Gonzalez (TX)
Huffman
Johnson, Sam
Labrador
Lieu, Ted
Napolitano
Rush
Sanford
Scalise

{time} 1729

Messrs. CRAWFORD, POLIS, and DENHAM changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. CAPUANO, BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, LEWIS of Minnesota,
SHUSTER, DENT, and GRAVES of Louisiana changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would like to remind all Members that the
upcoming votes are 2-minute votes. The Chair would also like to remind
Members that they should stay close to the floor for 2-minute votes.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Buck

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Buck) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 218, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 367]

AYES--203

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer

[[Page H5803]]

Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Zeldin

NOES--218

Adams
Aguilar
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Emmer
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes (KS)
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (MN)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IA)

NOT VOTING--12

Cleaver
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Gutierrez
Johnson, Sam
Labrador
Lieu, Ted
Napolitano
Sanford
Scalise
Speier

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1734

Mr. NUNES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 368]

AYES--185

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)

NOES--234

Adams
Aguilar
Amodei
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Bridenstine
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Graves (LA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hollingsworth
Hoyer
Huffman
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kinzinger
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine

[[Page H5804]]

Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--14

Bishop (UT)
Cleaver
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Hudson
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Labrador
Lieu, Ted
Napolitano
Sanford
Scalise
Shuster

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1738

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mrs. Hartzler

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri
(Mrs. Hartzler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 369]

AYES--209

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--214

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Cleaver
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
Johnson, Sam
Labrador
Lieu, Ted
Napolitano
Sanford
Scalise
Valadao

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1741

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MAST. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 369, I mistakenly voted ``no''
when I intended to vote ``yes.''

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 370]

AYES--183

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)

[[Page H5805]]

Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Wagner
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)

NOES--242

Adams
Aguilar
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Ellison
Emmer
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Hultgren
Hunter
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
LaHood
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (MN)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Neal
Newhouse
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--8

Cleaver
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
Johnson, Sam
Labrador
Napolitano
Sanford
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1745

Mr. FERGUSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Thomas J. Rooney of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Thomas J. Rooney) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 371]

AYES--107

Adams
Aguilar
Amodei
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bridenstine
Bustos
Butterfield
Carson (IN)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Comer
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Davidson
Davis, Danny
DeGette
DelBene
Demings
Denham
DeSantis
Deutch
Dunn
Evans
Fudge
Gaetz
Garrett
Gonzalez (TX)
Gowdy
Graves (MO)
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Himes
Hoyer
Hunter
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jones
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
Kinzinger
Krishnamoorthi
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lipinski
Love
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Mast
McKinley
Messer
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Nunes
Payne
Pearce
Peters
Pingree
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Schiff
Scott, David
Shimkus
Sinema
Sires
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Upton
Vargas
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Yoder

NOES--318

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barragan
Barton
Bergman
Beyer
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Connolly
Cook
Correa
Costa
Crawford
Crist
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
Delaney
DeLauro
Dent
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Emmer
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes (KS)
Esty (CT)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gomez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Hanabusa
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hurd
Issa
Jayapal
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Knight
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
Lance
Langevin
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (MN)
Lieu, Ted
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Norman
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rosen
Roskam
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Rush
Russell
Rutherford
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Takano
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Waters, Maxine
Weber (TX)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)

[[Page H5806]]

Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--8

Cleaver
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
Johnson, Sam
Labrador
Napolitano
Sanford
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1750

Messrs. KIND and CHABOT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CROWLEY and Ms. JACKSON LEE changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Cole

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 115-217.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

SEC. 12_. REPORT ON STRATEGY TO DEFEAT AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN,
THE ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA (ISIS), AND
THEIR ASSOCIATED FORCES AND CO-BELLIGERENTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to
Congress a report on the United States strategy to defeat Al-
Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS), and their associated forces and co-belligerents.
(b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of the adequacy of the existing legal
framework to accomplish the strategy described in subsection
(a), particularly with respect to the Authorization for Use
of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note)
and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).
(2) An analysis of the budgetary resources necessary to
accomplish the strategy described in subsection (a).
(c) Congressional Testimony.--Not later than 30 days after
the date on which the President submits to the appropriate
congressional committees the report required by subsection
(a), the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense
shall testify at any hearing held by any of the appropriate
congressional committees on the report and to which the
Secretary is invited.
(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 440, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, since 2001 when we passed the original
Authorization for Use of Military Force against al-Qaida and against
associated enemies, the nature of the war on terror in which we find
ourselves has changed dramatically. We now find ourselves fighting
enemies that simply did not exist at the time in areas that nobody in
Congress anticipated we would be at war.
This has caused a number of us to have very serious concerns as to
whether or not the original Authorization for Use of Military Force is
still relevant, and frankly, many of us have concerns that the war-
making power of Congress is slipping away from us. Indeed, we find
ourselves engaged since that original AUMF in 14 different countries on
more than almost 40 different occasions without Congress authorizing
the use of force. In our view, a new AUMF is necessary.
However, I also recognize that needs to come through a process. My
effort here is to try and set up a process where the administration can
participate, we can have an orderly discussion, and the appropriate
committees can mark up a new AUMF if Congress, indeed, thinks it does--
and again, I think many of us do.
A new AUMF would provide clear authority for ongoing operations
against ISIS and other terrorist groups, and it would fulfill the
constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of
force. My amendment directs the President to put forward a strategy, an
analysis, and a framework that we can actually debate and take action
on.
The underlying bill being considered today provides authorization for
training and equipping our military. Just as important is the time to
debate and deliberate how that military should be used to defeat our
enemies.
Recently, in an appearance before the House Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, Secretary Mattis made an appearance, and I actually asked
him would it be helpful to have an AUMF. At that time, he said it
absolutely would be helpful.
Our men and women who we have deployed in places, again, that nobody
in 2001 thought they would be deployed to, need to know that the
Congress of the United States is fully supportive of their deployment.
So this amendment would direct that the President, within 30 days
after the passage of the legislation, present to Congress a report
that, again, justifies the action, tells us the strategy, lays out the
objectives. Within 30 days after that report was received, the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense could be called before
the relevant committees to actually explain and defend that.
Now, again, in my view, I still think we need a new Authorization for
Use of Military Force, but I want to start a process whereby that would
begin, and I think this would help us achieve that. If others have an
opinion, that is fine too, but I think they would still find the report
useful and the testimony invaluable.
Sooner or later, Congress needs to take responsibility. I think with
the best will in the world, we have slipped into almost endless warfare
in a lot of places that none of us anticipated we would be.

{time} 1800

Again, these are not actions that I necessarily question, but I think
they have not been authorized, not been debated, not been examined,
and, frankly, the American people have been denied that debate. Also,
frankly, they have been denied the opportunity to hold their Members
responsible.
Remember, that original Authorization for Use of Military Force was
2001. Almost 80 percent of the Members of this body have been elected
since that original authorization. I think they ought to listen to the
debate, and, frankly, their constituents ought to be able to hold them
accountable.
So I would urge adoption of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Palmer). Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cole amendment.
I am a great admirer of the gentleman from Oklahoma. We have worked
together on several bipartisan letters to Speaker Ryan asking that the
Speaker bring to the House floor an AUMF to address the fight against
the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. I value the
gentleman's leadership and desire to find common ground with Members on
both sides of the aisle.
But it is frustrating, Mr. Chairman, to know that this amendment was
made in order while every other amendment to require the House to take
concrete action on these wars were denied their right to debate.
Maybe my good friend from Oklahoma is right and Congress has to take
baby steps. It needs yet another report on Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Syria. Its Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services need to be
ordered to hold hearings with the Secretaries of Defense and State to
review these matters.
But what then?
According to this amendment, nothing.
Now, I have had my fill of Congress doing nothing. I admire the
gentleman from Oklahoma. I support his amendment. But I am sick and
tired of reports. After 16 years in Afghanistan, we need a debate on
the future of U.S. military engagement there, and we need it now.
The gentleman said ``sooner or later.'' Well, after 16 years, we have
already arrived at sooner and later. After

[[Page H5807]]

6 years of military operations in Iraq and Syria, we need to vote on an
AUMF to address the fight against the Islamic State, and we need it
now.
How much longer will Congress keep sending our brave servicemen and -
women to war while it sits on its hands back here in Washington safe
and sound?
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, but I demand that
the House Republican leadership find the courage to act on these
matters now. Our troops and their families deserve more than silence
from a Congress that has no qualms about sending them to war but fails
to have the political courage to take a vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Thornberry), who is the distinguished chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from
Oklahoma and his consistent and strong leadership on this issue. I,
like him, believe that it is time to have a new AUMF, given the change
of circumstances and the evolution of the threats which we face. This
is the third administration that has had to take the 2001 AUMF and
stretch its meaning to encompass all sorts of groups in all sorts of
countries in all sorts of circumstances.
I think, from a legal standpoint, we need to update the AUMF so that
we are consistent with the intent of the Constitution. The even more
important point is the point that the gentleman from Oklahoma made, and
that is that the men and women who are out there risking their lives
deserve to know that they have the full backing of the country that
comes from an AUMF that Congress has passed.
I do want to take exception with one point that is sometimes made.
This House has voted twice to update the 2001 AUMF. It voted in 2011
and in 2012 to update that AUMF to include associated forces. It
happened to be part of the NDAA, even though the Armed Services
Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction. The Foreign Affairs
Committee worked with us, and we passed it twice in the House. It did
not survive contact with the Senate, and although there was some
detention language that came from it, but there had been efforts in
this House to update this language.
But I think the gentleman's approach is exactly right as for the
strategy, the budget that goes with it, and the legal framework we are
to follow, including the AUMF. So I do think it is a methodical,
deliberate process that will take us closer to doing what we ought to
do, and that does include updating this Authorization for Use of
Military Force against terrorist groups as that terrorist threat
evolves.
I commend the gentleman for his amendment and I support it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith), who is the distinguished ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I really want to follow up on
the committee chairman's remarks. He is absolutely right. In 2011 and
2012, I was actually very intimately involved in the process of trying
to update the AUMF, and I have all the bruises and scars to show for
it. It is a very difficult process.
The main thing I want to accomplish in my 2 minutes here is to
explain to everybody why we haven't updated it, because there are
actually very clear reasons. I am not sure they are good reasons, but
they are very clear. Everyone sort of acts like: Well, we just haven't
done it. Why are we twiddling our thumbs?
The reason is because, well, lawyers and how words are interpreted.
As we went through and tried to word it exactly correctly, and as we
negotiated with the Senate, we discovered that basically no matter how
you word it, two groups are going to oppose it for diametrically
opposite reasons. One side is going to say that it is too broad; it
gives the President way too much power for too long a period of time
and gives him too open a hand. Other groups will look at that exact
same language and say that this unfairly restricts the President; it is
going to make it more difficult.
You have these conversations those of us on the committee have with
the Pentagon as they are trying to figure out--I haven't had as many
conversations with the current administration as with the previous, but
I talked at length with the Obama folks about deciding what could they
do? Where could they commit a strike? Against which groups? It was a
very lengthy process to go back through and try to figure out whether
or not it was under the law allowed.
So if we change this, the lawyers on both sides are going to go
bananas saying that this new language proves that you can't do that or
it is too broad.
Now, all of that is not to say that we shouldn't do it. We should.
But I just want people to understand the difficulty of it and for our
House to actually be willing--and the Senate--to do the work we should
do.
Don't kid yourself that this is something, well, gosh, we could just
do it, it would be easy, and if everyone understands it, we are just
ducking it for no good reason.
It is going to be really, really hard. It is going to take
bipartisan, bicameral cooperation. But it is way past time for us to do
it. Yeah, when we do it, lawyers will interpret it, and there will be
some uncertainty. But there is uncertainty now as they try to, as the
chairman described, bootstrap the 2001 AUMF on to a whole bunch of
other things. We have an obligation to do this even if it is difficult.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both the chairman and the
ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee for their approach
to this problem. It is well known in this body that probably the House
Armed Services Committee is the most bipartisan committee that we have.
The fact that you have tried in the past and the fact that you are
willing to work with us here today is deeply appreciated.
I also thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I want to associate
myself with his frustration. He has every right to be frustrated. My
friend, the ranking member, is correct. This is a difficult job. It
will require bipartisan cooperation and bicameral cooperation.
But isn't that what war is about, to achieve a national consensus?
I think that is exactly what Secretary Mattis was asking for: We will
go do any mission that you as the Congress and the administration ask
us to do, but give us a clear mission and give us your absolute support
in carrying that through.
If we have this debate, there will undoubtedly be dissenting views.
That is what democracy is supposed to be about, too. So my friends that
would oppose the use of force, for instance, in Afghanistan, that voice
ought to be heard and that case ought to be made. Frankly, those of us
who are supportive of what we are trying to accomplish against ISIS
need to make our case and persuade the majority of this House and of
the United States Senate to move forward.
So I take this as the first step on a road. Like my friend, it is a
baby step. I would agree with his characterization, but at least it is
a step. This couldn't have happened without the cooperation of our
leadership in the House and certainly without the help of the chairman
and the ranking member of the committee. But, also, it couldn't have
happened without the persistence of my friend from Massachusetts. We
have worked together, and, believe me, that is unusual. We don't agree
on a lot of issues, but we respect one another.
This is also a question of congressional authority. I think it is a
profoundly important constitutional issue, and I do believe we have
inadvertently--because of the difficulty of the task--allowed war-
making power to slip away from us. That needs to stop. We are
responsible to the American people. The Constitution is very clear
about where war-making power lies.
Frankly, it ought to be difficult to go to war. It ought to demand a
lot of cooperation. It ought to be something that we think is worth
setting aside our differences, working together, because we are asking
men and women to risk their lives. We are putting them in harm's way,
and they deserve to know that we are 100 percent supporting them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5808]]

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cole amendment. I
thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma for his work in pushing Congress to have a debate on an AUMF.
I had offered an amendment as well to the defense bill, along with
Mr. Sanford and Mr. Moulton, that would put in place a new consolidated
AUMF, and I wanted to describe it.
I know there has been considerable debate over whether this is the
right bill for an amendment of this nature. But what we have tried to
do in this language is avoid the red lines that both parties seem to
have in this debate. As I perceive those red lines, my friends on the
Republican side of the aisle are reluctant to--in what would be
considered too restrictive a way--tie the hands of the Commander in
Chief by putting limits on geography or the introduction of ground
troops.
On the Democratic side, we are resistant to the idea of giving the
Commander in Chief too much of a blank check.
The way that we have sought to navigate the distance between these
two red lines is a resolution that would repeal the old authorizations
which no longer really apply to our current situation, replace it with
an authorization of use of force against al-Qaida, ISIS, the Taliban,
and their associated forces.

It would place no geographic limits and no limits on the introduction
of ground forces, but it would have these necessary safeguards. First,
it would have a sunset date of 3 years so that we don't again get to a
15-year period where we can't get a vote on an authorization and it
goes on beyond its intended life.
But it would also provide that, if a President decided to introduce
ground troops in a combat mission, a privileged motion would be in
order that any Member could trigger where within a discrete period of
time set up by the War Powers Act you could compel a vote to either
approve or modify or repeal the existing authority.
That would, of course, not prevent us from taking a vote at any other
time, but it would at least allow a vote and some accountability.
So I commend it for people's consideration as a way that we might
navigate the distance between the parties. I appreciate, again, my
colleague from Oklahoma's efforts to get us to weigh in and consider
and live up to our constitutional responsibility.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to advise my friend that I am prepared
to close, although, believe me, I could talk about this a long time.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy hearing the gentleman talk
about this. When we agree on things, it is always pleasant. I commend
the gentleman from Oklahoma for this amendment because I think it is
important that we move forward, even if it is a small step forward.
As I said initially, I am frustrated. I know Mr. Schiff is
frustrated, and a lot of other people are frustrated who had amendments
that were perfectly germane to this bill that I think should have been
debated and that many of us think they are long overdue.
Mr. Chairman, 16 years in Afghanistan is an awful long time. Some of
us fear that these wars are becoming endless. They are essentially on
automatic pilot. We don't give the attention that I think is
appropriate to what is happening, especially given the fact that so
many brave men and women have their lives on the line on behalf of our
country.
But beyond that, this AUMF in Afghanistan that has now been going on
for 16 years has also been used to justify what we are doing in Syria,
what we are doing in Iraq, in Somalia, and I could go on and on. This
is ludicrous.

{time} 1815

As the gentleman from Oklahoma knows, before we began to get sucked
in militarily in Syria, some of us tried to have a debate on an AUMF in
Syria, because we thought the time to debate an AUMF, the time to
debate military action, actually should be before we get involved.
Once we are involved, it is a lot harder to have these debates and to
raise the questions that are so important as to whether or not some of
these interventions are actually the right thing to do. But we skirted
that issue, and we continue to put this on the back burner.
As I said, I have no objection to this amendment. I support this
amendment. I just think we are at a point where we should be doing much
more. We are much further along than to just require a report or to
mandate hearings. I am concerned that after these reports and these
hearings are done, then what? The gentleman's amendment doesn't require
that Congress take up an AUMF or that we actually have to have a vote
in so many days or so many months.
So I look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure that not
only are these reports and these hearings conducted as we all want them
to be, but to continue to press this leadership to do the right thing:
to not give away Congress' constitutional responsibilities and to do
what is right by the men and women who sacrifice so much for our
country.
There are only a small group of people who are directly impacted by
these wars, and that is the men and women who are fighting and their
families. The rest of us are asked to do basically nothing. I think
that Congress has shirked its responsibility. We can't tolerate that.
I hope there is a big, strong bipartisan, if not unanimous vote, for
the gentleman's amendment, but this is just the first teeny step in
what we need to do. I promise him that he has my cooperation in any
efforts to get it to the point where we actually debate these wars and
develop AUMFs where people, as he said, can vote for them or against
them.
My view of what we should be doing, I know, is very different from
the gentleman from Oklahoma, and perhaps even different from the
gentleman from California, but that is the kind of genius and the
wonder of this place. We can all have different points of view, and we
can even differ, but at the end of the day, the majority decides.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Cole amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by associating myself very much with
the remarks of my good friend from Massachusetts.
Frankly, this is an area where we have found common ground because I
think we both deeply revere this institution and, frankly, respect the
Constitution of the United States.
When he says that we have shirked our duty, in my view, we have. I
think it is absolutely a fair statement to make. I think the gentleman
from Washington is also correct that it is hard. This is a very
complex, difficult kind of war. It is a new kind of war, its enemies
morphing into different forms and different places.
All that is true, but it doesn't excuse us from the obligation to do
our job and give those men and women the assurance that they are acting
at the direct request and order of the American people in fulfilling
the responsibility we have asked them to take.
It doesn't directly relate to this issue, but I felt very much the
same way as my friend did at the time about Libya. We stretched the
NATO alliances so far to get involved in a country where, in my view,
we should have never been involved. More importantly, Libya didn't
attack NATO. It really didn't make a lot of sense to use that kind of
instrument to justify a war.
I aim this at no particular President, either the last one or current
one, but, frankly, Presidents don't like Congress very much to tell
them what they have to do. They want to be able to do it. Well, I am
sorry; the Constitution is very clear about that.
One of the reasons we have a Constitution is because we didn't want
to live under a system where it is a monarchy as opposed to a
Presidency. It is part of our duty to keep a check on the extraordinary
power that we place in the hands of the Chief Executive of the United
States, regardless of who that person is, regardless of what party they
represent.
My friend makes a good point when he says sometimes we don't trust
one another, or we don't want to give the President too much power. We
also

[[Page H5809]]

don't want to take too much responsibility ourselves, sometimes. For
that, we ought to look in the mirror. We ought to be willing to take
that awesome responsibility that the Constitution entrusts us with and
make the tough decisions that the American people send us here to make.
I actually think going through this process will be very good for this
institution.
My friend is correct, it is a baby step, and I share his frustration.
But I think the current administration deserves a chance to be heard
and to present a justification, not just inherit an ongoing conflict.
I think the committee of jurisdiction, the Foreign Affairs Committee,
deserves the opportunity to hear this.
My friend expresses a concern which, quite frankly, I share, that we
will have a hearing and not much more. That would not be where I would
propose that we end. I would hope and would work with my friend to make
sure that is not where we end.
I think at the end of the day, whatever the deliberation is, whatever
the recommendation is for a new AUMF, it needs to come to this floor,
and it needs to be open for full debate. If we can't muster a majority
to approve that, then we shouldn't be fighting in the places we are
fighting if we are not willing to actually vote and use that.
So I am going to pledge to continue to work with my friend and urge
the administration, assuming this actually gets in the final bill, to
take it as an opportunity to establish a very clear set of objectives,
a very clear strategy, a very clear estimate of the budgetary cost, and
a very clear analysis of the legal framework under which they are
operating.

I think they, and we, owe that to the country. We certainly owe it to
the men and women that we have asked to go and do difficult things and
risk their lives on our behalf. They do it willingly. Again, the
Secretary of Defense said this would be helpful. This kind of debate
would make a difference.
I, again, thank my friends for their cooperation in this. I thank
particularly the chairman and the ranking member for allowing us to use
this particular vehicle to express it. I thank the leadership of the
House for being willing to grapple with this issue. I thank my friend
from Massachusetts for his persistent efforts; and my friend from
California, Ms. Lee, who has also worked on this. A lot of people on
our side of the aisle feel exactly the same way.
This is a debate about the future of a conflict, but it is also a
debate about the appropriate constitutional authority of the Congress
of the United States and a willingness by the Members to embrace this.
So it is actually, I think, a good day, even though it is the first
step in a long journey.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 115-217.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

SEC. 12_. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS OF THE USE OF VIOLENT OR
UNORTHODOX ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE TO
SUPPORT EXTREMIST OR TERRORIST MESSAGING AND
JUSTIFICATION.

(a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
conduct two concurrent strategic assessments of the use of
violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support
extremist or terrorist messaging and justification and submit
the results of the assessments to the appropriate
congressional committees. These concurrent assessments shall
be carried out by the following:
(1) A team of United States government employees, from
relevant departments and agencies with appropriate background
and expertise to contribute to such an assessment.
(2) A team of non-governmental experts from academia,
industry, or other entities not currently a part of the
United States Government, with appropriate background and
expertise to contribute to such an assessment.
(b) Elements.--The assessments required under subsection
(a) shall include the following elements:
(1) Identification of major or significant identifiable
Islamic religious doctrines, concepts, or schools of thought
used by various extremist groups for specific purposes, such
as recruitment, radicalization, financing, or propaganda.
(2) How key elements of these doctrines, concepts, or
schools of thought are incorporated into extremist or
terrorist messaging and justification.
(3) Identification of major or significant identifiable
Islamic religious doctrines, concepts, or schools of thought
that can be used to counter the threads identified in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
(4) Recommendations for identifying key thought leaders or
proponents for these major or significant identifiable
Islamic religious doctrines, concepts, or schools of thought
in paragraphs (1) through (3).
(5) Recommendations for technological capability, training
improvements, or process developments to speed the
identification of harmful or destabilizing Islamic religious
doctrines, concepts, or schools of thought used by extremist
groups.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Relations,
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs,
Homeland Security, and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 440, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, it has been 15 years and 10
months since the attacks on September 11, which killed nearly 3,000
people and wounded nearly 6,000 others.
Since then, America has fought five operations in eight countries,
prosecuting wars against those responsible, their allies, and
sympathizers, and the foundational ideology that fomented it. And 5,400
American heroes have given the last full measure of devotion in service
to their country to combat this vile enemy.
Yet, in spite of all of this, there are those who continue to oppose
any attempts to study the ideological roots of this enemy. Their
zealous commitment not to understand our enemies' motivations would
almost be impressive if it weren't so harmful.
As my friends across the aisle were so eager to point out, this is
not a war which can be won with bombs and bullets alone. Despite the
peerless capability of our warrior class, we cannot kill our way out of
this problem, nor is this a war which can be won by increasing the
State Department's budget for providing ``jobs programs'' for
jihadists.
It has to be noted by even the most intransigent of those who would
oppose my amendment today that so many of the young men who buy into
this destructive movement come from families who are more than
comfortable financially.
Osama bin Laden's family was not going hungry when he declared war on
America, twice. Many of the significant leaders of the various groups
and factions are men with postdoctorate degrees in Islamic studies from
some of those most prestigious universities in the Muslim world.
Yet we are told by countless talking heads and politicians that men
and women who carry out these terrible attacks and cry, Allahu Akbar,
in that moment when they detonate bombs in the midst of the crowds of
innocent men, women, and children, have nothing to do with Islamist
ideology.
Mr. Chairman, to embrace that flagrant fallacy means we will never be
able to address this evil on a strategic level, and our noble men and
women in uniform will be forced to combat it on a tactical level only.
This present struggle against the vast majority of terrorism in the
world is fundamentally one of ideas, and it will be won on the
battlefield in the hearts and minds of human beings.
Mr. Chairman, I know that there are many brands of violent extremism,
and I eagerly would join my colleagues in any effort to combat them
all. If the FBI does not have enough resources to combat neo-Nazis or
White supremacists, then I want to know about that,

[[Page H5810]]

and I want to help. There is no desire in my heart whatsoever to single
out any group of innocent people or denigrate their faith in any way.
However, the reality remains that there is one spectrum of Islamic
ideology whose variants are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, feeling
the insurgency in Iraq, the countless attacks on civilians in Europe,
and the boundless evil of the Islamic State.
In 2017 alone, there have been 1,134 attacks in 49 countries, in
which more than 8,000 people have been killed and 8,000 more were
injured.
Our allies across the world, including in the Muslim world, have now
begun to study and analyze the ideology that foments Islamic terrorism
so they can begin to resist it on a strategic ideological level.
If we in America do not also address this on a strategic level, this
underlying ideology that catalyzes the evil of jihadist terrorism
across the world, then its list of victims will only grow longer.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will help us to categorize those
perpetrating violence in the name of Islam and help us to identify our
allies within the Muslim world who can assist in countering the Islamic
message of global jihad. Those who would oppose this amendment choose
to continue the status quo, that is to say, no strategy at all.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would just implore the Members of this body to
pass this amendment and join this sincere effort in finally identifying
our enemies, empowering our friends, and ending this evil destructive
ideology once and for all.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am a Marine Corps infantryman. When I was fighting
door-to-door in Iraq, some of the bravest marines in my unit, men of
valor and patriotism, were Muslims. They stood with the Iraqis to risk
their lives and endangered loved ones to help us.
At this very moment, marines are still fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Many of them are Muslim. They still rely on the steadfast
support of our Muslim allies. That is why I find this amendment so
troubling.

{time} 1830

Mr. Chairman, at a time when American forces are deployed across the
Muslim world and depend on the support of Muslim governments, the
Franks amendment will send exactly the wrong message to our friends and
adversaries alike.
By singling out a faith tradition for a strange and unprecedented
study by our military, we are sending a dangerous message and signal
that America is at war with Islam. America is not ever going to be at
war with a single religion.
It is our task as Members of Congress who care about our military and
about the American values that our servicemembers risk their lives for
to defend it and to reaffirm those values, and we can do that by
defeating this misguided amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

July 13, 2017, on page H5810, the following appeared: amendment.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair,

The online version has been corrected to read: amendment. Mr.
Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FRANKS of Arizona.
Mr. Chair,

========================= END NOTE =========================

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, how much time remains on this side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, if the Congress of the United States were to
direct the Department of Defense to study and examine and scrutinize
your religion to list leaders in that religion and teachers, to decide
what was orthodox and unorthodox, you would be among--I don't know--the
Christian community, the Jewish community, Buddhists, Hindus, and
Muslims.
But only Islam is selected out in the Franks amendment, only one
religion is done so. Mr. Chair, if you select out one religion for
particular scrutiny, to scrutinize their doctrine, to declare to the
government what is orthodox and unorthodox, and to identify teachers of
it, you have simply abridged the free exercise of that religion. That
is unconstitutional.
Nobody is saying you can't study terrorism. You can study what
motivates people to commit acts of terrorism; and we should, but we
don't, not equally. The fact is that this amendment singled out and
stigmatizes one religious group. It is wrong, and it should be voted
down.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
dangerous and divisive amendment that is the latest attempt to
criminalize the religious beliefs of Muslims in this country.
Let me remind my colleague from Arizona that our country was founded
on the principle of religious liberty, and the First Amendment
guarantees that right.
In calling for a strategic assessment, this amendment tramples on our
Constitution's separation of religion and State, singles out the Muslim
religion, its practices and leaders, and it does nothing to keep our
Nation safe. In fact, fear-mongering undermines trust and national
security, and pits neighbor against neighbor, community against
community, and is an insult to our American Muslim communities.
This amendment doesn't even apply its arbitrary surveillance equally,
because if it did, it would include assessments of White supremacist
terrorism or terrorism committed against abortion clinics and doctors.
Mr. Chairman, our fight against terrorism is not against any
religion. It is against the acts that are committed and those who
commit the acts. It violates our Constitution and runs counter to who
we are as a nation.
Frankly, it is horrifying, and I urge my colleagues to resoundingly
oppose it.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, which
selectively requires the military to identify Islamic religious
doctrines, concepts, or schools of thought used by various extremist
groups and how they have been incorporated into terrorist messaging.
The problem, of course, is that terrorist killers have used religious
doctrines and concepts from every major religion on earth, including
not just Islam, but Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism,
Buddhism, for homicidal purposes. Because religion is based on faith
and not reason, and because religious texts are not self-explanatory,
good people will invoke scripture for good causes and evil people will
invoke scripture for evil causes.
We don't need a big government study to teach us something so
commonsensical, which the Founders taught us a long time ago. If we
want to study the exploitation of religion for terrorism, let's study
it universally.
Focusing on one religion not only vastly understates the problem, but
exacerbates the problem by fomenting the myth that religious fanaticism
and terrorism are unique to the charlatans and predators of Islam when
they are common to the charlatans and predators of nearly every
religious faith and identification.
Constitutionally, we do not single out particular religions for
governmental inspection and suspicion under the First Amendment.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have available?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think what we need to remember is there is some
commonality here; and I am reminded of this almost every weekend,
especially when I stay here in Washington, D.C. I go to section 60 of
Arlington National Cemetery to visit my friends that died in the war in
Iraq. In every headstone there, you will see a lot of different symbols
of religions, whether it is the Jewish star, whether it is the Islamic
symbol or the Christian symbol, or the nonbeliever, no symbols
whatsoever.

[[Page H5811]]

The one thing they all have in common is they are all sharing the
same ground. They are all sharing the same sacred ground of Arlington
National Cemetery because they all died for the same American values.
That American value says that we will not ostracize somebody else for
their religion, for who they believe or who they don't believe. Any
steps towards that is dangerous.
If we want to continue to reaffirm the values that those men and
women have died for that are now sitting in section 60, we need to
defeat this amendment and do it because we know it is the right thing
to do, and it reaffirms those American values that those men and women
have died for.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
the time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will empower America to identify those
heroes within the Muslim world who are working so bravely to counter
the odious violent ideology which continues to use Islam to justify the
murder of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. It
will save American lives, it will save Muslim lives, it will save lives
across the world, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Cheney

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in House Report 115-217.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

SEC. 1673. PROHIBITION ON REDUCTION OF THE INTERCONTINENTAL
BALLISTIC MISSILES OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided by subsection (b),
none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2018 for the
Department of Defense shall be obligated or expended for--
(1) reducing, or preparing to reduce, the responsiveness or
alert level of the intercontinental ballistic missiles of the
United States; or
(2) reducing, or preparing to reduce, the quantity of
deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles of the United
States to a number less than 400.
(b) Exception.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not
apply to any of the following activities:
(1) The maintenance or sustainment of intercontinental
ballistic missiles.
(2) Ensuring the safety, security, or reliability of
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
(3) Reduction in the number of deployed intercontinental
ballistic missiles that are carried out in compliance with--
(A) the limitations of the New START Treaty (as defined in
section 494(a)(2)(D) of title 10, United States Code); and
(B) section 1644 of the Carl Levin an Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3651; 10 U.S.C. 494
note).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 440, the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment that will help
ensure the strength of our nuclear deterrent by preventing further
reductions to our deployed ICBM fleet below 400 missiles.
At this point, our deployed fleet at 400 missiles is at the basic
level necessary to maintain a strong and effective nuclear deterrence.
Mr. Chair, our ICBMs are a critical leg of our triad as they provide
our commanders with a responsive, flexible, and survivable military
response ready 24/7, 365 days a year.
Our ICBM leg of the triad also adds significantly to our deterrence
capability by increasing the number of targets our adversaries must
hold at risk.
My amendment is a safeguard that prevents any unilateral disarmament
that would leave our Nation vulnerable to attack. My amendment does not
impact our compliance with the New START, and it does not change our
current alert level or require the deployment of any additional ICBMs
at this point.
The amendment simply reaffirms to our adversaries and our allies that
our nuclear deterrence will remain strong.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply not necessary, as it is a
solution in search of a problem.
Now, the budget request for fiscal year 2018 has no funding for
reducing the level or reducing the number of deployed ICBMs below 400,
and there are no plans to do so in the future.
It also presupposes the completion of the nuclear posture review,
which is currently ongoing and is expected at the end of this year. So
instead of jumping the gun and acting precipitously, we should allow
the administration time to finish the review and base our actions on
its findings.
This is particularly true because it may be that reducing the number
of ICBMs and reducing alert levels could, in fact, be beneficial to
enhance strategic stability. Preventing such a reduction also
disregards the crucial and fundamental role of our Nation's submarines,
which provide an assured, survivable second-strike capability, and
which dissuades an adversary from thinking they could launch a
disarming attack against the United States.
ICBMs can be seen as destabilizing in that they would force a very
rapid decision by the President and are use-or-lose nuclear weapons.
History has shown us concerns about the potential for a rushed decision
in response to a false alarm that none of us wish to see repeated.
Mr. Chairman, if we are going to talk about keeping ICBMs, it should
be done in a meaningful, informed discussion based on the findings of
the Nuclear Posture Review instead of yet another annual amendment
driven by what seems like a parochial interest, which does not consider
the other legs of the nuclear deterrent.
Instead, we should focus on increasing accountability and ensuring
that we are improving the morale and culture inside the Air Force with
regard to nuclear weapons so that some of the serious and embarrassing
problems that have plagued the ICBM missileers and security forces in
recent years may be properly addressed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chair, there is nothing in my amendment that has any
negative impact on our submarine fleet. In fact, I support strongly, as
does the NDAA, the importance of the triad, as have administrations of
both parties over many years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Rogers), the distinguished chairman of the Strategic Forces
Subcommittee.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding and for offering this amendment. A provision nearly identical
to this has been in the final version of the last two NDAAs, and it
should be in the final version of this year's NDAA.
As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I understand that
the responsiveness and distributive nature of our ICBMs are the most
critical features. Without ICBMs, an adversary would need to strike
less than 10 targets to disarm our nuclear forces. But with ICBMs, an
adversary needs to strike hundreds of hardened targets deep in
America's homeland. That is a much more difficult proposition and is at
the very heart of our deterrence.
During his confirmation hearing, Secretary of Defense Mattis agreed

[[Page H5812]]

with this assessment, noting: ``The ICBM force provides a cost-imposing
strategy on our adversaries.''
We should confirm this policy once more. It is vital that our ICBM
force remain robust and responsive. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this
amendment.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished ranking member of the House
Armed Services Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment basically
unnecessarily ties the hands of our administration in terms of choosing
how best to spend Defense dollars.
Now, the gentlewoman mentions that this does not say anything about
reducing our submarine force or reducing our bomber force. It does,
however, lock in a certain amount of ICBMs that we have to have, and,
in that sense, it does impact all other choices in terms of our Defense
policy not just within the nuclear framework.

But within the nuclear framework, there is, as I keep emphasizing and
people keep resisting, a finite amount of resources available to fund
the Department of Defense. In fact, that is the central problem with
this whole bill, as I have mentioned.
We don't have a budget resolution. This is $72 billion over-the-
budget caps that the House has shown no willingness to vote to lift. So
here we have $72 billion that we are just kind of hoping is going to be
there. So at some point we are going to have to make some choices. I
keep saying that. We keep delaying it--doing CRs. We even shut down the
government once.
We continue to sort of stumble forward with no clear plan, but
amendments like this are just another example of how we lock in a lack
of flexibility in terms of how we spend our money.
What is the best approach to our national security?
Now, it has been mentioned and I keep harping on the fact that we
don't have a national security plan yet. And it has been mentioned,
well, Presidents usually take awhile to deliver them. And okay, fine,
we will, you know, sometime in the next year hopefully get that plan.
But amendments like this trap that plan, restrict the ability of the
President to deal with a finite amount of resources to come with what
is the best approach.

{time} 1845

And there are a lot of arguments that ICBMs are not the best approach
to nuclear deterrence. Do we need an absolute fixed amount? I don't
think so. I think we need greater flexibility, particularly as we await
the findings of the Nuclear Posture Review to figure out what our best
strategy going forward is.
So we have all these little parochial pieces where we make sure that
the piece that is closest to us, you can't touch that. We have to have
exactly the same number. That is not in the best interests of a
comprehensive National Security Strategy.
We need flexibility in this budget. We are not going to have as much
money as everybody seems to think that we are going to have. That is
just the fact. We are $20 trillion in debt, running up deficits of $700
billion a year. We have the budget caps. At some point, we are going to
have to start making choices. This amendment does not help in that.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. As I like to quote: ``Gentlemen, we are out
of money; it is time to think.''
We are, in fact, running out of money--that is a Winston Churchill
quote, by the way--but we appear to not be willing to do the thinking
part about making choices on where we should not and should spend our
money.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming has 2\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), a retired brigadier general and the former
commander of Offutt Air Force Base.
Mr. BACON. Mr. Chair, I just want to point out, when I came to the
Air Force in 1985, we have since then reduced our ICBM force by 60
percent. Enough is enough. Four hundred is the level we should not go
below.
Our strategic nuclear force enterprise is America's force of last
resort and has, for decades, asserted peace through strength for the
United States and its allies around the world.
I would like to remind my colleagues that every one of us in the
House and the many millions of Americans we represent have lived and
prospered in peace precisely because we have made the conscious
decision as a nation many years ago to keep a strong, responsive, and
resilient nuclear deterrent.
The ICBM leg of the nuclear triad is, by design, the largest, safest,
and most responsive part of our central strategic forces. It is the
very foundation of our nuclear deterrent, and we must preserve the
longstanding bipartisan consensus that our ICBMs be kept at high levels
of alert and at sufficient numbers to ensure our nuclear deterrent
stays credible.
As we continue down to a new START level, a treaty level of 400
ICBMs, it is essential that we go no lower. When we say ``promote the
common defense,'' this is what those words mean.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I believe, as I said before, this amendment is an
unnecessary amendment. It does not meaningfully address the three legs
of the nuclear triad. Let's wait until the Nuclear Posture Review is
done and base our decision then on facts and not on speculation.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, we have seen over the years many misguided
efforts to unilaterally cut our strategic forces and to do so in a way
that has been really based on a notion that somehow if we reduce the
level of weapons in our inventory, that our adversaries will do the
same. We know that is simply not the case.
This amendment is crucial to ensure that we maintain the kind of
deterrent that is necessary in a world in which we are facing
increasing threats.
Our ability to deter against the threats of our adversaries depends
in large part both upon their understanding of our will to use our
forces as well as their belief in our capability, and the last thing we
should be doing is reducing below a safe and secure number.
Mr. Chairman, in offering this amendment, my intention is very much
to say, look, our obligation as Members of the House of Representatives
is to provide for the common defense and to ensure that, while we are
overseeing activities by the executive branch, we are not allowing the
kind of irresponsible cuts that could put us at risk.
So I urge the adoption of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 115-217.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 681, line 15, insert ``(a) Integration of Patriot
Missiles Into Integrated Master Test Plan.--'' before ``Not
later than''.
Page 682, after line 5, insert the following new
subsection:
(b) Normalizing Operational Test and Evaluation.--
(1) Condition for proceeding beyond low-rate initial
production.--Section 2399(a)(1) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``or a covered designated major
subprogram'' and inserting ``a covered designated major
subprogram, or an element of the ballistic missile defense
system''.
(2) Conforming repeal.--Section 1662 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 10 U.S.C. 2431
note) is repealed.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 440, the gentleman

[[Page H5813]]

from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The goal of this amendment is simple: given the rising nuclear and
ballistic missile threat from North Korea and Iran, we have a renewed
urgency to do everything we can to make sure that the Missile Defense
Agency goes as fast and as far as possible. This includes cutting
unnecessary bureaucracy.
This amendment would normalize the operational test and evaluation
process for our ballistic missile defense system, simply treating it
like every other major weapons system that we have.
This amendment fixes an outdated bureaucratic requirement which
requires the Secretary of Defense, himself, to guarantee in advance a
system will work before it can even be bought. This is such a high bar,
we don't use it anywhere else.
Under this amendment, we will still have a robust, rigorous testing
program, without the Secretary of Defense needing to get personally
involved. The Director of OT&E, which is the Pentagon's testing office,
would still be required by law to evaluate and approve testing plans,
analyze and evaluate testing results, and publish an annual public
report with this information. Congress and the Secretary of Defense
will still have the power to say no. The difference is MDA won't have
needless obstacles to prevent them from moving forward.
Let's free the Missile Defense Agency and unshackle it so it can
better do its vital job of protecting us from missile attack.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I regret that my good friend from Colorado
has offered this amendment. It was not voted on in either subcommittee
or in full committee. It should be rejected by this House, and rejected
overwhelmingly.
Why? We need to make sure that our missile defense works. This is not
a vote on whether we are for or against missile defense. I am strongly
for missile defense. I just want to make sure that it works. In the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, there is a strong section
in that act that requires that it work.
The gentleman's amendment is not supported by the Missile Defense
Agency, it is not supported by the Pentagon.
What it is is a vendor's dream, what it is is a defense contractor's
dream, because it would enable them to sell stuff to us, the American
taxpayer and to the citizens of this country, promising national
defense, but not proving it.
We need to fly it before we buy it. We need to test it before we
invest in it. We need to make sure that it works before we fork over
the dough.
If this loophole were to be established into law, allowing missiles
to be flown through this loophole, it would delight the defense
contractor industry. This is an amazing breach of what really, I think,
has been American law for 150 years.
Back during the Civil War, there was a law passed called the Lincoln
Law. And because so many Americans were outraged that the bullets sold
to the Union soldiers did not work and the cannonballs did not work and
the boots didn't last in the rain, they passed one of the toughest laws
ever passed by this Congress, to penalize defense contractors who sold
us stuff that did not work.
We need to make sure these missiles work. The gentleman is absolutely
correct. The threat from North Korea is real, the threat one day from
Iran could be real. We need to make sure these missiles work. And to
short-circuit, to obviate a testing requirement would be an appalling
thing for us to do.
This has been law since 2015. It is working, it works fine, the
Missile Defense Agency is all for it. Let's keep it. If it ain't broke,
don't fix it.
And to allow contractors to sell us stuff that is unproven, that is
not tested, that has not flown before we buy it, oh, my gosh, I
wouldn't want to be on that side of that transaction.
So the gentleman is an outstanding Member, he does great work. As I
say, this was not voted on in either subcommittee or full committee. It
would be a mistake for the full House to support this amendment at this
time.
So I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, if there is any evidence that MDA or DOD
does not favor this amendment, I sure haven't seen it, and I would like
to see that produced so I could see that.
At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Rogers), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding
and for his amendment.
This committee has been trying to seek out and remove impediments to
speedy acquisition for years. Section 1662 of fiscal year 2015 NDAA is
just such an impediment. I don't understand why Congress believed it
was prudent to let DOD's testers prevent the Secretary of Defense from
deploying military capability.
Further, I do not agree with the contention that this amendment will
further reduce oversight of the testing of missile defense
capabilities. In fact, the plain language of the amendment inserts
ballistic missile defense systems into the existing title 10 DOD OT&E
testing requirement, just like every other DOD acquisition program.
This is literally where the so-called ``fly before you buy'' term
comes from.
Every year, we already receive another report from DOD OT&E on the
testing of ballistic missile defense, and then there is the Integrated
Master Test Program that MDA and DOD OT&E collaborate on. And then,
finally, the GAO does a report, also, that helps Congress oversee BMD
programs.
How many reports do we need to do the same thing? Especially when
North Korea is making unprecedented progress on its ballistic missile
capability, we should be making MDA more efficient and nimble, and I
think removing redundant reporting requirements and impediments on the
deployment of proven capabilities is a commonsense step.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, this Congress in 2015 passed this
requirement because it made sense.
Institutional memory can be short. The MDA is already exempt from
normal Pentagon acquisition processes. No one in this body should think
that MDA is subjected to the DOD 5000 regular acquisition rules.
What this amendment would do would be to short-circuit that process.
And which Member of this House in either party would want to admit to
the constituency that they represent that they voted to allow missiles
to be purchased by this country before we knew they would work?
The threat is real, and we need to be prepared for that threat and we
need defense missiles that work. Already the shot doctrine is several
to one. We have to shoot up four missiles and hope that we can stop the
one from coming over. We need things that actually work better than
that. We need to make sure this equipment that the U.S. taxpayer is
buying functions correctly.
We have already expedited the acquisition process for the MDA. Let's
not expedite it further. If our missile defenses don't work, we are all
in trouble. The Congress decided wisely and rightly in 2015.
The MDA, as I say, does not support this amendment. They have had
ample opportunity to come to us and say that they want more
flexibility, more freedom, they want things that work too. This House
should want things that work. So I urge my colleagues to support what
works and oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. How much time does each side have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Tennessee has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, as my colleagues know, just one successful
ballistic missile attack on U.S. territory

[[Page H5814]]

or forward deployed forces or allies would carry an enormous cost of
life and treasure. I am pleased that we are finally making some real
progress in this bill at funding missile defense programs that have
been underfunded for years. General John Hyten, who is in charge of
missile defense, said recently: ``What really worries me the most is
I'm worried that our Nation won't be able to go fast enough to keep up
with our adversaries anymore.'' He argues that we need to empower our
engineers with the authority and responsibility so they can go faster.
We have the greatest minds at the Missile Defense Agency. They are
motivated people that serve our country every day when they come into
work. We just need to let them do their job. But we must not let
outdated, duplicative bureaucratic requirements keep us from defending
ourselves from ballistic missile threats.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which would free the
Missile Defense Agency to move faster to defend us from future threats.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I know this amendment comes late in the
process and my colleagues are tired of hearing all these National
Defense Authorization Act amendments, but this one is really important.
Already the North Koreans threaten the United States. Other countries
could do so. We need to make sure that our missile defense works, and
our constituents will not accept excuses.
Now, as I say, defense contractors love this approach if they can
sell us something that is not proven to work, but this equipment must
work.

{time} 1900

This Congress got it right in 2015. The MDA is on board with the
testing that they have to do. The process now works. Let's not change
it, and this amendment would change it for the worse. It would be a
defense contractor's dream.
Let's not cave in to the lobbyists, let's not give away the American
taxpayers' money, and let's make sure that the defense equipment we buy
works. By stopping this amendment, we will do so. This amendment would
be a giveaway to the defense contracting industry.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Cooper), my colleague. He is very sincere in what he says.
I believe we have so many checks and balances that we will not be
buying things that don't work. But, we need to unshackle MDA so they
can get their job done faster and better than they can right now.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, Admiral Syring has been a great leader of
MDA. He did not request this change. Admiral Syring has done a great
job. Let's follow his lead, and let's reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I
offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 2, 8, 9, 11,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35
printed in House Report 115-217, offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas:

amendment no. 2 Offered by Mr. Hudson of North Carolina

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

SEC. 1__. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE
ENHANCED MULTI MISSION PARACHUTE SYSTEM.

(a) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2018 for the enhanced
multi mission parachute system may be used to enter into, or
to prepare to enter into, a contract for the procurement of
such parachute system until the date on which the Secretary
of the Navy submits to the congressional defense committees
the certification described in subsection (b) and the report
described in subsection (c).
(b) Certification.--The certification described in this
subsection is a certification by the Secretary of the Navy
that--
(1) neither the Marine Corps' currently fielded enhanced
multi mission parachute system nor the Army's RA-1 parachute
system meet the Marine Corps requirements;
(2) the Marine Corps' PARIS, Special Application Parachute
does not meet the Marine Corps requirements;
(3) the testing plan for the enhanced multi mission
parachute system meets all regulatory requirements; and
(4) the Department of the Navy has performed an analysis
and determined that a high glide canopy parachute system is
not more prone to malfunctions than the currently fielded
free fall parachute systems.
(c) Report.--The report described in this subsection is a
report that includes--
(1) an explanation of the rationale for using the Parachute
Industry Association specification normally used for sports
parachutes that are employed from relatively slow flying
civilian aircraft at altitudes below 10,000 feet for a
military parachute;
(2) an inventory and cost estimate for any new equipment
and training that the Marine Corps will have to be acquire in
order to employ a high glide parachute;
(3) an explanation of why the Department of the Navy is
conducting a paper down select and not conducting any testing
until first article testing; and
(4) a discussion of the risk assessment for high glide
canopies, and specifically how the Department of the Navy is
mitigating the risk for malfunctions experienced in other
high glide canopy programs.

amendment no. 8 Offered by Mr. Buck of Colorado

Page 375, after line 8, insert the following:

SEC. 1039. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DESIGNATE OR EXPAND
FEDERAL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS.

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2018 for the
Department of Defense may be obligated or expended to
designate or expand any Federal National Heritage Area in any
of Baca, Bent, Crowley Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero,
Prowers, or Pueblo counties, Colorado.

amendment no. 9 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

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

SEC. 1040. REQUIREMENT RELATING TO TRANSFER OF EXCESS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EQUIPMENT TO FEDERAL AND
STATE AGENCIES.

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

amendment no. 11 Offered by Ms. Cheney of Wyoming

At the end of subtitle G of title XII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 12_. PLAN TO ENHANCE THE EXTENDED DETERRENCE AND
ASSURANCE CAPABILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN
THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION.

(a) Finding.--Congress recognizes that North Korea's first
successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile
(ICBM) constitutes a grave and imminent threat to United
States security and to the security of United States allies
and partners in the Asia-Pacific region.
(b) Plan.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Commander of the United States Pacific
Command and the Commander of the United States Strategic
Command, shall submit to the congressional defense committees
a plan to enhance the extended deterrence and assurance
capabilities of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region.
(c) Matters to Be Included.--Such plan shall include
consideration of actions that will enhance United States
security by strengthening deterrence of North Korean
aggression and providing increased assurance to United States
allies in the Asia-Pacific region, including the following:

[[Page H5815]]

(1) Increased visible presence of key United States
military assets, such as missile defenses, long-range strike
assets, and intermediate-range strike assets to the region.
(2) Increased military cooperation, exercises, and
integration of defenses with allies in the region.
(3) Development and deployment of ground-based
intermediate-range missiles, whether by allies or by the
United States, if the United States were no longer bound by
the limitations of the INF Treaty.
(4) Increased foreign military sales to allies in the
region.
(5) Planning for, exercising, or deploying dual-capable
aircraft to the region.
(6) Any necessary modifications to the United States
nuclear force posture, including re-deployment of submarine-
launched nuclear cruise missiles to the region.
(7) Such other actions the Secretary considers appropriate
to strengthen extended deterrence and assurance in the
region.
(d) Form.--Such plan shall be submitted in unclassified
form, but may contain a classified annex.
(e) INF Treaty Defined.--In this section, the term ``INF
Treaty'' means the Treaty between the United States of
America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the
Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range
Missiles, signed at Washington December 8, 1987, and entered
into force June 1, 1988.

amendment no. 19 Offered by Mr. Poliquin of Maine

Page 38, line 10, strike ``not fewer than two'' and insert
``the two''.
Page 38, beginning on line 23, strike ``the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law
114-92) or''.
Page 39, line 2, strike the period and insert ``and that
was fully funded.''.
Page 39, after line 2, insert the following:
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) destroyers authorized to be appropriated by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) should be configured as Arleigh Burke
class Flight IIA guided missile destroyers, as initially
authorized in section 123 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239;
126 Stat. 1655 ); and
(2) the Department of the Navy should bear the majority
risk associated with the share line on a covered destroyer.

amendment no. 20 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington

Strike subsection (d) of section 211 and insert the
following:
(d) Form of Contracts.--
(1) Requirement for fixed-price type contracts.--The
contract awarded for the procurement of the unmodified
commercial aircraft under the PAR program shall be a fixed
price type contract.
(2) Analysis for fixed-price type contracts.--The Secretary
of the Air Force shall work with the contractor and conduct
an analysis of risk and explore opportunities to enter into
additional fixed price type contracts for engineering and
manufacturing development beyond the procurement of the
unmodified commercial aircraft as described in paragraph (1).

amendment no. 21 Offered by Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico

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

SEC. 2__. PILOT PROGRAM ON INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES.

The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of Energy, shall conduct a pilot program among
defense laboratories (as defined in section 2199 of title 10,
United States Code), national laboratories (as defined in
section 188(f) of title 10, United States Code), and private
entities to facilitate the licensure, transfer, and
commercialization of innovative technologies.

amendment no. 22 Offered by Mr. Loebsack of Iowa

At the end of subtitle B of title II in division A, add the
following:

SEC. ___. STEM(MM) JOBS ACTION PLAN.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Jobs in science, technology, engineering, and math in
addition to maintenance and manufacturing (collectively
referred to in this section as ``STEM(MM)'') make up a
significant portion of the workforce of the Department of
Defense.
(2) These jobs exist within the organic industrial base,
research, development, and engineering centers, life-cycle
management commands, and logistics centers of the Department.
(3) Vital to the continued support of the mission of all of
the military services, the Department needs to maintain its
STEM(MM) workforce.
(4) It is known that the demographics of personnel of the
Department indicate that many of the STEM(MM) personnel of
the Department will be eligible to retire in the next few
years.
(5) Decisive action is needed to replace STEM(MM) personnel
as they retire to ensure that the military does not further
suffer a skill and knowledge gap and thus a serious readiness
gap.
(b) Assessments and Plan of Action.--The Secretary of
Defense, in conjunction with the Secretary of each military
department, shall --
(1) perform an assessment of the STEM(MM) workforce for
organizations within the Department of Defense, including the
numbers and types of positions and the expectations for
losses due to retirements and voluntary departures;
(2) identify the types and quantities of STEM(MM) jobs
needed to support future mission work;
(3) determine the shortfall between lost STEM(MM) personnel
and future requirements;
(4) analyze and explain the appropriateness and impact of
using reimbursable and working capital fund dollars for new
STEM(MM) hires;
(5) identify a plan of action to address the STEM(MM) jobs
gap, including hiring strategies and timelines for
replacement of STEM(MM) employees; and
(6) deliver to Congress, not later than December 31, 2018,
a report specifying such plan of action.

amendment no. 23 Offered by Mr. Castro of Texas

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

SEC. 2__. APPROPRIATE USE OF AUTHORITY FOR PROTOTYPE
PROJECTS.

Section 2371b(d)(1)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``or nonprofit research institution''
after ``defense contractor''.

amendment no. 24 Offered by Ms. Meng of New York

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

SEC. 2__. JET NOISE REDUCTION PROGRAM OF THE NAVY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Navy, acting through
the Director of the Office of Naval Research, may carry out a
jet noise reduction program to study the physics of, and
reduce, jet noise produced by high-performance military
aircraft.
(b) Elements.--In carrying out the program under subsection
(a), the Secretary may--
(1) identify material and non-material solutions to reduce
jet noise;
(2) develop and transition such solutions to the fleet;
(3) communicate relevant discoveries to the civilian
aviation community; and
(4) support the development of theoretical noise models,
computational prediction tools, noise control strategies,
diagnostic tools, and enhanced source localization.

amendment no. 25 Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania

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

SEC. 2__. PROCESS FOR COORDINATION OF STUDIES AND ANALYSIS
RESEARCH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

The Secretary of Defense shall implement a Department of
Defense-wide process under which the heads of the military
departments and Defense Agencies responsible for managing
requests for studies and analysis research are required to
coordinate annual research requests and ongoing research
efforts to minimize duplication and reduce costs.

amendment no. 26 Offered by Mr. Norman of South Carolina

Page 104, after line 6, insert the following:

SEC. 337. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
COST MODELS USED IN MAKING PERSONNEL DECISIONS.

(a) Review Required.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a review of--
(1) the extent to which the Department of Defense has
incorporated feedback and lessons learned from cost
comparisons of the performance of Department of Defense
functions by members of the Armed Forces, Department of
Defense employees, and contractor personnel in making
workforce decisions;
(2) the extent to which the Department has used such
feedback and lessons learned to improve guidance, including
DODI 7041.04 and the full cost of manpower tool; and
(3) any other related matter the Comptroller determines
appropriate.
(b) Report and Briefing.--
(1) Briefing.--Not later than March 1, 2018, the
Comptroller General shall provide to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives an
interim briefing on the review required by subsection (a).
(2) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to such committees a report on such review.

amendment no. 27 Offered by Mr. McKinley of West Virginia

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

SEC. 345. INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS.

(a) Increase.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the
funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be
appropriated for operation and maintenance, Defense-wide, as
specified in the corresponding funding table in section 4301,
for Civil Military Programs is hereby increased by
$25,000,000 (to be used in support of the National Guard
Youth Challenge Program).
(b) Offset.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the
funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be
appropriated for operation and maintenance, Defense-wide, as
specified in the corresponding funding table in section 4301,
for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide is hereby reduced
by $25,000,000.

[[Page H5816]]

amendment no. 28 Offered by Ms. Meng of New York

Page 108, after line 23, insert the following new section:

SEC. 345. REPORT ON MATERNITY UNIFORMS.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
issue to the congressional defense committees a report
regarding maternity uniforms for pregnant members of the
Armed Forces.
(b) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall
address the following:
(1) The design of maternity uniforms.
(2) Materials used in the fabrication of maternity
uniforms.
(3) The sizing of maternity uniforms.
(4) Prices of maternity uniforms.
(5) The availability of maternity uniforms.
(6) The quality of maternity uniforms.
(7) The utility of maternity uniforms.

amendment no. 29 Offered by Mr. Cartwright of Pennsylvania

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

SEC. 345. STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH PROCESS FOR COMMUNICATING
AVAILABILITY OF SURPLUS AMMUNITION.

Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics shall provide to the congressional
defense committees a briefing on the status of compliance
with section 344 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328; 130 Stat. 2084).

amendment no. 30 Offered by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania

Page 115, line 21, strike ``10'' and insert ``4.8''.

amendment no. 31 Offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler of Washington

Page 126, after line 12, insert the following:

SEC. 516. CONFIDENTIAL REVIEW OF CHARACTERIZATION OF TERMS OF
DISCHARGE OF MEMBERS WHO ARE SURVIVORS OF SEX-
RELATED OFFENSES.

(a) Codification of Current Confidential Process.--
(1) Codification.--Chapter 79 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1554a a new
section 1554b consisting of--
(A) a heading as follows:

``Sec. 1554b. Confidential review of characterization of
terms of discharge of members of the armed forces who are
survivors of sex-related offenses''; and

(B) a text consisting of the text of section 547 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (10
U.S.C. 1553 note, Public Law 113-291).
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 79 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1554a the following new
item:
``1554b. Confidential review of characterization of terms of discharge
of members of the armed forces who are survivors of sex-
related offenses.''.

(3) Conforming repeal.--Section 547 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (10 U.S.C. 1553 note,
Public Law 113-291) is repealed.
(b) Clarification of Applicability to Individuals Who
Allege Sex-related Offenses During Military Service.--
Subsection (a) of section 1554b of title 10, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, is amended
by striking ``sex-related offense'' and inserting the
following: ``sex-related offense, or alleges that the
individual was the survivor of a sex-related offense,''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1554b of title 10,
United States Code, as added by subsection (a), is further
amended--
(1) by striking ``Armed Forces'' each place it appears in
subsections (a) and (b) and inserting ``armed forces'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``boards for the correction of military
records of the military department concerned'' and inserting
``boards of the military department concerned established in
accordance with this chapter''; and
(B) by striking ``such an offense'' and inserting ``a sex-
related offense'';
(3) in subsection (b), striking ``boards for the correction
of military records'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1)
and inserting ``boards of the military department concerned
established in accordance with this chapter''; and
(4) in subsection (e), as redesignated by subsection
(d)(1)--
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``title 10, United States
Code'' and inserting ``this title''; and
(C) in paragraphs (2) and (3), by striking ``such title''
and inserting ``this title''.

amendment no. 32 Offered by Mrs. Watson Coleman of New Jersey

Page 146, after line 16, insert the following:

SEC. 531. SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE.

(a) Army.--The Secretary of the Army, in coordination with
the Chiefs of the National Guard Bureau and the Army Reserve
shall--
(1) conduct an evaluation of staffing approaches used to
administer the sexual assault prevention and response program
in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. In
conducting such evaluation, the Secretary consider
opportunities to leverage resources across all Army
components and shall conduct an assessment of the number and
allocation of full-time and collateral-duty personnel, the
fill rates for program positions, and the types of positions
used; and
(2) direct the Chief of the Army Reserve to develop and
implement an expedited line-of-duty determination process for
Army Reserve sexual assault victims, along with a method for
tracking the length of time to make the determinations, that
ensure members of the Armed Forces who wish to file a
confidential or restricted report are able to go through the
determination process without disclosing their circumstances
to the chain of command.
(b) SHARP Program Office.--The Director of the SHARP
Program Office of the Army National Guard shall--
(1) communicate and disseminate its guidance on budget
development and execution for the SHARP program to all full-
time SHARP program personnel;
(2) develop clear guidance on budget development and
execution for the SHARP program and disseminate this guidance
to its full-time SHARP program personnel; and
(3) expand the scope of the midyear review to include
monitoring and providing oversight of SHARP program
expenditures at the Army National Guard state and Army
Reserve command level.
(c) National Guard Bureau.--The Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military
departments concerned, shall reassess the Office of Complex
Administrative Investigation's timeliness and resources to
determine how to improve the timeliness of processing sexual
assault investigations involving members of the Army National
Guard and identify the resources needed to improve the
timeliness of such investigations.

amendment no. 33 Offered by Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia

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

SEC. 3__. INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG
PROGRAMS.

(a) Increase.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the
funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 1403 for drug interdiction and
counter-drug activities, Defense-wide, as specified in the
corresponding funding table in section 4501, for drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities, Defense-wide, is
hereby increased by $10,000,000 (to be used in support of the
National Guard counter-drug programs).
(b) Offset.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the
funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 201 for research, development, test,
and evaluation, Defense-wide, as specified in the
corresponding funding table in section 4201, for Operational
System Development, Global Command and Control System, Line
210, is hereby reduced by $10,000,000.

amendment no. 34 Offered by Mr. Gowdy of South Carolina

Page 116, line 1, after ``Representatives'' insert the
following: ``and the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform of the House of Representatives''.

amendment no. 35 Offered by Mr. Crawford of Arkansas

Page 125, after line 2, insert the following new section:

SEC. 505. DESIGNATING THE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL CORPS
AS A BASIC BRANCH OF THE ARMY.

Section 3063(a) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (12), by striking ``and'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (14); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following new
pargraph (13):
``(13) Explosive Ordnance Disposal Corps; and''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 440, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Smith) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), a combat veteran.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because veteran suicide is an
epidemic. Nearly every week, I hear from a veteran who is thinking
about taking their own life--maybe walking into their garage, turning
on their car, and never coming out.
That is why I introduced the Oath of Exit, and why I urge you to pass
this bill as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The bill
creates a voluntary operation oath for members of the Armed Forces with
a specific aim of reducing veteran suicide.
The idea for this bill came from friends of mine who have struggled
with suicidal thoughts since leaving the military--people like my
friend Boone; people who have actually been there on the edge.
I think we all know that, throughout our lives, the most important
commitments that we make are spoken--

[[Page H5817]]

whether it is an oath upon joining the military, the vows at our
wedding, or saying the Pledge of Allegiance--and this verbal commitment
to reach out to a brother- or sister-in-arms is important, as well.
Mr. Chairman, integrity is more than a word to a servicemember. So,
if we commit that we will reach out to a brother or a sister because we
need help, then we will do it.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Smith for including my
amendment en bloc and for allowing me to speak on it today.
Mr. Chairman, among the amendments under consideration in this en
bloc measure is one that I have authored to address various challenges
to the Army, National Guard, and Army Reserve sexual assault prevention
and response programs.
While sexual assault among our Active Duty forces has been a frequent
topic of discussion, I rise today to draw attention to the same issue
that remains just as prevalent within our Reserve component forces.
More than half a million members currently serve in the Army Guard
and Reserve. Hundreds of incidents of sexual assault are reported each
year, and it is estimated that several hundred more go unreported.
The Reserve components of the Army continue to suffer from staffing
imbalances, poor budget management, and slow investigations that delay
access to care for hundreds of sexual assault victims. My amendment
directs the Department of Defense to take steps to address these
issues.
Sexual violence is a criminal behavior, and it has no place in our
military.
We must regain the trust of the servicemembers, who have been brave
enough to come forward to report those crimes, by bettering our
military justice system.
Congress has a responsibility to protect the servicemembers who make
immeasurable sacrifices to serve and protect our country. We must
foster a system that encourages servicemembers to seek help and care,
and that protects the very people who keep our Nation safe.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington
and the gentleman from Texas for their leadership, making their way
through a very important action on behalf of the American people, and
that is the defense authorization. I thank them for the amendments that
were made en bloc, and I hope to speak quickly about these important
amendments.
I am very grateful. Over the years, I have consistently introduced
the triple negative breast cancer amendment because of the many women
in the United States military who benefit from the research necessary.
My amendment authorizes and encourages increased collaboration
between the DOD and the National Institutes of Health regarding
combating triple negative breast cancer.
It has a particular impact on African-American women, but it impacts
White women, Hispanic women, and others, as well. This is a serious
illness that affects between 10 to 17 percent of female breast cancer
patients and is more likely to cause death.
My amendment would help to save lives. I am delighted because this
would impact Active-Duty women, as well as veterans; but, in
particular, Active-Duty women with testing. It affects women under 50
years of age, and, therefore, women who would be in the United States
military.
I am very grateful for the acceptance of the South Sudan amendment.
My amendment directs the Department of Defense to prepare contingency
plans to assist relief organizations and delivery of humanitarian
assistance efforts in South Sudan and to engage in consultation with
South Sudan military counterparts to deescalate conflict.
Famine in South Sudan has been created by conflict. On February 20,
2017, famine was declared formally in two counties of Unity State.
100,000 people will be in jeopardy of dying from famine. It has come
about between the conflicts between the President and his former Chief
of Staff, or his former Vice President.
We need to have the engagement to save lives, and I thank the support
for this amendment.
Likewise, the North Korean ICBMs. As I was in Europe, during the
Fourth of July, my amendment, in particular, supports upholding the
goals of the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the
atmosphere, in outer space, and under water; addresses the fact that
our Nation should take the next step in preparing for a nuclear North
Korea; and establishes that the stakes may be far greater.

We have all been discussing the question of North Korea and ICBMs. We
have to be studious in assessing it.
Let me also say, however, that I am disappointed that the amendment
dealing with the AUMF on North Korea did not get in. I believe it is an
important issue that we must be concerned about.
I want to continue to work with the committee on PTSD and ensuring
that, even though authorized, more funding can come. I had asked for
$2.5 million.
And then I want to indicate the importance of recognizing, in light
of the large footprint that Russia now has in its effort to undermine
the democracy in this country, that we be very concerned about
recruitment of college students by foreign agents.
I had an amendment for us to be concerned about that. I look forward
to working with the committee. I plan to introduce this as legislation
because a young man by the name of Glenn Shriver, an outstanding
college student, majoring in international relations at a college in
Michigan, while doing a study abroad in China, developed an interest in
Chinese culture, and he was sought after by the Chinese.
I also want to work with the committee on addressing the question of
elections for our soldiers.
And, finally, I want to make sure that we stop cyber attacks by
foreign entities into our elections.
But, I am asking support for my amendment on the Korea ICBMs, the
Triple-Negative Breast Cancer, and the support of helping humanitarian
aid get to South Sudan.
Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member and chairman, and I ask support
for my amendments.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member
Smith for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their
devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives
to keep our nation safe.
I especially wish to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for
including Jackson Lee Amendment No. 56 in the Chairman's En Bloc
Amendment to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2018.
This Jackson Lee Amendment authorizes and encourages increased
collaboration between the DOD and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer.
``Triple Negative Breast Cancer'' is a term used to describe breast
cancers whose cells do not have estrogen receptors and progesterone
receptors, and do not have an excess of the ``HER2'' protein on their
cell membrane of tumor cells.
This makes commonly used test and methods to detect breast cancer not
as effective.
This is a serious illness that effects between 10-17 percent of
female breast cancer patients and this condition is more likely to
cause death than the most common form of breast cancer.
Seventy percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast
cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.
The Jackson Lee Amendment will help to save lives.
TNBC disproportionately impacts younger women, African American
women, Hispanic/Latina women, and women with a ``BRCA1C genetic
mutation, which is also prevalent in Jewish women.
TNBC usually affects women under 50 years of age and makes up more
than 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American.
African American women are far more susceptible to this dangerous
subtype than white or Hispanic women.
The collaboration between the Department of Defense and NIH to combat
Triple Negative Breast Cancer can support the development of multiple
targeted therapies for this devastating disease.
A Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer
for which no targeted treatment is available.
The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast
cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.''

[[Page H5818]]

Triple negative breast cancer is a term used to describe breast
cancers whose cells do not have estrogen receptors and progesterone
receptors, and do not have an excess of the HER2 protein on their cell
membrane of tumor cells.
In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control predicted that year 26,840
black women would be diagnosed with TNBC.
The overall incidence rate of breast cancer is 10 percent lower in
African American women than white women.
African American women have a five year survival rate of 78 percent
after diagnosis as compared to 90 percent for white women.
The incidence rate of breast cancer among women under 45 is higher
for African American women compared to white women.
Triple Negative Breast Cancer cells account for between 13 percent
and 25 percent of all breast cancer in the United States and are
usually of a higher grade and size, are more aggressive and more likely
to metastasize, and onset at a much younger age.
Currently, 70 percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast
cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.
African American women are 3 times more likely to develop triple-
negative breast cancer than white women.
African-American women have prevalence TNBC of 26 percent versus 16
percent in non-African-Americans women.
African-American women are more likely to be diagnosed with larger
tumors and more advanced stages of breast cancer.
Currently there is no targeted treatment for TNBC exists.
Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as
hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the
triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted
treatment.
Because there continues to be a need for research funding for
biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trial designs that
will lead to the early detection of TNBC and to the development of
multiple targeted therapies to treat this awful disease, the Jackson
Lee Amendment is essential to paving a way for advancements in these
areas.
That is why I am pleased that Jackson Lee Amendment No. 56 has been
included in the Chairman's En Bloc Amendment and I urge all Members to
join me in voting for its adoption.
I also wish to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for including
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 168 in the Chairman's En Bloc Amendment to
H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2018.
This Jackson Lee Amendment directs the Department of Defense to
prepare contingency plans to assist relief organizations in delivery of
humanitarian assistance efforts in South Sudan and to engage in
consultation with South Sudan military counterparts to deescalate
conflict.
As a member of the South Sudan Caucus, and the sponsor of H.R. 48,
the ``Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act,'' I
have long advocated and supported emergency assistance to South Sudan,
the world's newest nation, located in the center of Africa and bordered
by six countries.
Such emergency assistance is desperately needed now to respond to the
famine in South Sudan.
On February 20, 2017 famine was declared formally in two counties of
Unity State, which is located in the northern region of South Sudan.
The United Nations currently estimates that more than 100,000 people
in two Unity State counties are directly affected by the famine.
In addition, food security experts are concerned that famine will
spread.
According to expert analyses, in the absence of urgent humanitarian
action, as many as 4.9 million South Sudanese, about 4o percent of the
country's population, face the grim and certain prospect of starvation.
In 1998 the region suffered from a famine spurred by civil war and
approximately 70,000 to several hundred thousand people died during
that famine.
Although South Sudan has previously experienced widespread food
insecurity, the present famine crisis is different because it is almost
entirely man-made.
South Sudan is rich in oil, but following decades of civil war it is
also one of the least developed regions on earth--only 15 percent of
its citizens own a mobile phone and there are very few tarmac roads in
an area larger in land mass than Spain and Portugal combined.
This makes the Nile River, which flows through regional centers, an
important transport and trade route.
Since South Sudan overwhelmingly voted to break away from Sudan in
2011, the government's main concern has been to get oil flowing
following disagreements with the regime in Khartoum.
There have been a few small armed rebellions, border clashes and
deadly cattle feuds but these have all taken place far from the capital
city of Juba.
Signs of friction within the governing party, Sudan People's
Liberation Movement (SPLM), came when President Salva Kiir, an ethnic
Dinka, the country's largest group, fired his deputy Riek Machar, who
is from the second largest tribe, the Nuer.
President Kiir believes Mr. Machar was behind a coup plot to oust him
and seize power.
Mr. Machar denies the accusations, but has publicly criticized Mr.
Kiir for failing to tackle corruption and vowed to challenge President
Kiir for leadership of the SPLM.
It is not clear what led to the breach in their relationship but what
started out as a political squabble has escalated into ethnic violence.
The loyalties of the South Sudan army are divided with each of the
principals commanding significant military support and forces loyal to
each man have clashed around the country.
And some of the most intense fighting has taken place in areas where
famine is most severe.
Compounding matters, South Sudan is awash with guns after decades of
conflict and there is a history of ethnic tension for politicians to
exploit if they believe that could help them gain, or remain in, power.
Complicating this situation is the fact that while the Government of
South Sudan has reportedly promised access to the most at-risk areas,
humanitarian organizations remain unable to provide vital food, water
and shelter in many locations.
The actions of South Sudan Government in prohibiting humanitarian
assistance from getting to starving communities has undermined the most
proactive attempts by the United States and others to address what has
now become a famine.
The Jackson Lee Amendment directs the Department of Defense to
prepare contingency plans to assist relief organizations delivering
humanitarian assistance and consult with South Sudan's military leaders
to deescalate intra-party conflict, put petty disputes aside, and to
put the well-being of the South Sudan people first.
Mr. Chair, let me conclude by observing that while bringing an end to
the civil war and humanitarian relief the famine-stricken in South
Sudan must be our first order of business, it is also very important to
note that all of us who worked to secure its independence want the
country to succeed and become a productive and constructive member of
the community of nations.
That is why I have reintroduced the ``Equal Rights and Access for the
Women of South Sudan Act'' (H.R. 48), which promotes the human rights
of women in South Sudan as the country transitions to a long-term
government and to ensure women enjoy the right to participate fully in
the political and economic life of the country.
Despite its newly won independence women in South Sudan continue to
face brutal violations of their human rights.
A lack of infrastructure as well as gender inequality has the
potential to regress much of the progress that has been made in South
Sudan.
Such a lack of human development factors only furthers the
marginalization of women in South Sudan.
The ``Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act'' puts
equal rights and access for the women of South Sudan at the forefront
by:
1. Encouraging the appointment of women to high level positions
within Republic of South Sudan Government;
2. Ensuring that a significant portion of United States development,
humanitarian, and relief assistance is channeled to local and United
States-based South Sudanese organizations, particularly South Sudanese
women's organizations;
3. Providing long-term financial assistance for primary, secondary,
higher, nontraditional, and vocational education for South Sudanese
girls, women, boys, and men;
4. Providing financial assistance to build health infrastructure and
deliver

[[Page H5819]]

high-quality comprehensive health care programs, including primary,
maternal, child, reproductive, and mental health care;
5. Requiring military training regarding the protection, rights, and
particular needs of women and emphasizing that violations of women's
rights are intolerable and should be prosecuted; and
6. Taking all necessary steps to ensure that internally displaced
South Sudanese women are directly receiving food aid, shelter, relief
supplies, and other services from United States-sponsored programs.
Mr. Chair, as a nation, we should support the Republic of South Sudan
in its efforts to become a freer, more equitable society that respects,
supports, and endorses the rights of women.
That is why I am pleased that Jackson Lee Amendment No. 168 has been
included in the Chairman's En Bloc Amendment and I urge all Members to
join me in voting for its adoption.
Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to explain the
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 83, as designated by the Rule governing
debate on H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2018.
This Jackson Lee Amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to
develop measures to defend against deployment of nuclear ICBMs by North
Korea to protect against damage or destruction of satellites critical
to U.S national defense and global communications, International Space
Station, and other vital assets.
I request the support of my colleagues for this Jackson Lee Amendment
because it: upholds the goals of the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon
Tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater; addresses the
fact that our nation should take the next step in preparing for a
nuclear North Korea; establishes that the stakes may be far greater
than a nuclear North Korea when they may have the capacity to launch a
device using an ICBM, because of our nation's dependence on the global
telecommunications infrastructure that includes Geo-stationary
satellites as well as its implications for Space Stations and our space
program; and may have serious consequences for a range of environmental
factors that are critical to the health and wellbeing of our planet.
On July 4th, our nation's Independence Day, the U.S. confirmed that
North Korea had achieved a major step toward its objective of
delivering a nuclear weapon as far as U.S. shores.
This test represents a new escalation of the threat that a nuclear
North Korea poses to the United States and our interest.
The launch of Hwasong-14 missile reached a range of approximately
4160 miles, a distance capable of reaching Alaska, according to
experts.
The timing of this test launch was confirmed as a calculated insult
when North Korean Leader Kim Jung-Un stated that the missile was a
``gift to Americans for the July 4th Anniversary.''
The United States must attempt to manage this situation and retain
the peace in the region.
We understand the end to the Korean War was a Armistice Agreement
signed in 1953, that put into place a cease fire.
North Korea still views itself as being at war with the United
States.
Otto Warmbier, an American college student who died days following
his release from a North Korean prison was held as a prisoner of war.
Given the unstable nature of the North Korean government, which has
political purges in recent years that included members of North Korean
President's Kim Jongun's family we can hold little hope for cooperation
that is essential to avoid unintended conflicts and reduce tensions
with its neighbors.
A nuclear-armed North Korea does not mean that country will be able
to shoulder the burden of managing a responsible nuclear weapons
program, given their single minded pursuit of a nuclear armed ICBM.
Nuclear arms programs are not always safe or easy for the nation
attempting to develop weapons.
The United States had its share of near disasters.
For example, in 1961, a B-52 Stratofortress carrying two 4-megaton
Mark 39 nuclear bombs broke up in mid-air, dropping its nuclear payload
in the process over North Carolina.
Fortunately, neither bomb detonated averting a catastrophic nuclear
incident at our own hands.
North Korea's program poses a danger to the entire Korean Peninsula,
Japan, and the Asia Pacific region because it insists on using the
world as its nuclear testing ground.
Even if an unarmed ICBM should land in a populated area, this could
trigger a conflict.
If North Korea decides to test nuclear weapons on its ICBM rockets
this poses serious problems for peace and stability not only that
region of the world, but the United States as well.
Since the entry of the space age, America has lead and we now rely on
the fruits of our investments in manned and unmanned missions to
support a global telecommunications infrastructure; a permanent
research presence in the International Space Station; plans for going
much further.
A nuclear North Korea armed with ICBMs can put all of that in
jeopardy.
We also have interest in the environment within our atmosphere, but
also the physical environment that envelopes the earth.
One component of the earth's space environment that protects against
solar radiation is called the Van Allen Belts.
The Van Allen belts present another factor to be considered when
talking about North Korea's nuclear program.
The Van Allen belts may respond to incoming solar radiation and is
known to change size.
The primary benefit to people on earth is they protect us from solar
radiation.
Should North Korea's tests of ICBM include nuclear devices of
significant size this could pose risks to not only our satellites,
space stations, but extend to the Van Allen Belts.
This Jackson Lee amendment allows for a deliberative approach to
addressing the potential for a nuclear North Korea.
This amendment works to develop plans to develop effective
countermeasures to the threat that North Korea's nuclear program
presents.
I ask that my Colleagues join me in support of this Amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support my bipartisan amendment, introduced with Representative
Gottheimer and Representative Sinema.
This amendment would expand opportunities for Active-Duty military
men and women to learn career skills and provide education that would
assist them as they transition back to civilian life.
The current United Services Military Apprenticeship Program is an
effective program that provides this employer specific training. But,
that program is only offered to the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast
Guard, which is less than half of our uniformed services personnel.
This amendment expands the program to offer it to any member of U.S.
uniformed services--Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Public Health
Service.
We should make it easier for these brave men and women who have
served to transition to civilian life with a steady job, and, at the
same time, infuse our workforce with the strong leadership skills that
the military can provide.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Washington for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for my amendment to
the National Defense Authorization Act.
Our men and women in uniform are not immune from the epidemic of
opioid addiction, an abuse that is ravaging our country. In fact, the
National Institutes of Health reports opioid misuse are higher among
servicemembers than among civilians, due to the use of these drugs to
treat the symptoms of PTSD and chronic pain.
Our brave servicemembers have earned our gratitude and deserve our
highest quality of care. We need to do all we can to ensure our
military doctors are equipped with the most up-to-

[[Page H5820]]

date, best practices to help fight back against this disease.
This amendment requires medical professionals in the Department of
Defense that prescribe opioids for pain management to undertake 12
hours of training every 3 years in order to prevent overprescribing and
better identify and treat abuse.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense
amendment to ensure that our Active-Duty military get the medical care
they truly deserve.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today
in support of my amendment, which encourages partnerships between the
DOD, DOE, and the private sector, to facilitate the licensure,
transfer, and commercialization of innovative technologies.
We cannot let groundbreaking research and new technologies in our
Nation's Federal laboratories sit idle when they have the potential to
reenergize domestic manufacturing, create high-paying jobs, and
transform our economy.
It is not government or private sector, it is government and private
sector working together to create opportunities that have led to the
development of many products in the marketplace today, including
batteries powering electric vehicles, internet servers, and GPS.
Both the DOD and DOE have separate programs that support technology
transfer to the private sector, but they don't work very well together.
My amendment would fix that and ensure that these departments are
actively collaborating to support the commercialization of cutting-edge
technologies and make them more widely available to American businesses
and consumers.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues' support.

{time} 1915

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers,
and I urge adoption of the amendments en bloc.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I, too, urge adoption of the amendments
en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, my amendment is similar to an amendment
of mine that passed the House 243-180 in the FY2017 NDAA. This
amendment mirrors language that I have introduced called the SEND Act.
While the Department of Homeland Security--not the Department of
Defense--is tasked with maintaining the safety of our southern border,
it has long received help and assistance from the DOD and our military.
One of the ways the DOD helps the border patrol is through the
transfer of equipment it deems ``excess'' to its needs.
Under current law, the transfer of this ``excess'' equipment already
gives preference to counterdrug, counterterrorism, and border security
activities.
My amendment simply takes that preference a step further, giving
border security preference for a few specific pieces of equipment which
are particularly useful for border security applications: unmanned
surveillance vehicles including Aerostat blimps, night-vision goggles,
and Humvees.
The border patrol is the first and last line of defense against those
criminal gangs.
In my home state of Texas, and in other border states like New Mexico
and Arizona, the war against the cartels is an ongoing affair. Cartels
are involved in labor and sex slavery.
Just last week in Southern Texas, border patrol agents raided a home
to find 37 illegal immigrants, including three children.
These men, women and children were being held by cartel drug runners
for ransom.
I've been to the border countless times, Mr. Chair.
I've spoken with the men and women who have sworn to protect the good
folks of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico from the dangerous people who
cross the southern border.
A Texas Ranger told me that they are outmanned, outgunned, out-
financed and out-equipped by the drug cartels.
I've heard firsthand the need these men and women have for new
equipment, specifically the equipment I just listed.
In fact when I recently visited the border in April, I met with the
Border Patrol in the Rio Grande sector and they informed me that in
areas where they were using Aerostat surveillance blimps, crossings
were way down.
When asked what we could do to help the sector, the answer was clear:
More Aerostat blimps.
Well, that is what we are trying to do here with this amendment, Mr.
Chair.
This idea isn't new. In 2010, with our help, the excess equipment
program sent 6 excess military Humvees to Texas Border Sheriffs. Often,
before this transfer, the border sheriffs were forced to chase the drug
cartels in Crown Victorias.
This amendment mandates that DOD give border security applicants an
additional preference for the equipment listed in this amendment.
I've heard from our agents down on the border and this is the
equipment they need.
Let's put this ``excess'' equipment to use on the southern border in
the war against the drug cartels and help bring security, peace of
mind, and more safety to those Americans living in the area.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Marshall). The question is on the amendments en
bloc offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I
offer additional amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39,
40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, and 53 printed in House
Report 115-217, offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas:

amendment no. 36 offered by mr. kildee of michigan

Page 155, after line 5, insert the following new section:

SEC. 544. ANNUAL TRAINING REGARDING THE INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN OF
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

In addition to any currently mandated training, the
Secretary of Defense may furnish annual training to all
members of the Armed Forces and all civilian employees of the
Department of Defense, regarding attempts by the Russian
Federation and its proxies and agents to influence and
recruit members of the Armed Forces as part of its influence
campaign.

amendment no. 37 offered by mr. taylor of virginia

Page 155, after line 5, insert the following new section:

SEC. 544. PROGRAM TO ASSIST MEMBERS IN OBTAINING PROFESSIONAL
CREDENTIALS.

Section 2015(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``and'' and inserting ``or''.

amendment no. 38 offered by mr. smucker of pennsylvania

Page 155, after line 5, insert the following new section:

SEC. 544. EXPANDING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE UNITED STATES
MILITARY APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
expand eligibility for the United Services Military
Apprenticeship Program to include any member of the uniformed
services.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``uniformed
services'' has the meaning given such term in section 101 of
title 10, United States Code.

amendment no. 39 offered by ms. meng of new york

At the end of subtitle E of title V in division A, add the
following new section:

SEC. ___. ENHANCING MILITARY CHILDCARE PROGRAMS AND
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) Hours of Operation of Childcare Development Centers of
the Department of Defense.--
(1) In general.--The hours of operation of each childcare
development center (CDC) of the Department of Defense shall,
to the extent practicable, be set and maintained in manner
that takes into account the demands and circumstances of
members of the Armed Forces, including members of the reserve
components, who use such center in facilitation of the
performance of their military duties.
(2) Matters to be taken into account.--The demands and
circumstances to be taken into account under paragraph (1)
for purposes of setting and maintaining the hours of
operation of a childcare development center shall include the
following:
(A) Mission requirements of units whose members use such
center.
(B) The unpredictability of work schedules, and
fluctuations in day-to-day work hours, of such members.
(C) The potential for frequent and prolonged absences of
such members for training, operations, and deployments.
(D) The location of such center on the military
installation concerned, including the location in connection
with duty locations of members and applicable military family
housing.
(E) The geographic separation of such members from their
extended family.

[[Page H5821]]

(F) The extent to which spouses of such members are
employed or pursuing educational opportunities, whether on a
full-time basis or a part-time basis.
(G) Such other matters as the Secretary of the military
department concerned considers appropriate for purposes of
this section.
(b) Childcare Coordinators for Military Installations.--
(1) Childcare coordinators.--Each Secretary of a military
department shall provide for a childcare coordinator at each
military installation under the jurisdiction of such
Secretary at which are stationed significant numbers of
members of the Armed Forces with accompanying dependent
children, as determined by such Secretary.
(2) Nature of position.--The childcare coordinator for a
military installation may be an individual appointed to that
position on full-time or part-time basis or an individual
appointed to another position whose duties in such other
position are consistent with the discharge by the person of
the duties of childcare coordinator.
(3) Duties.--Each childcare coordinator for an installation
shall carry out the duties as follows:
(A) Act as an advocate for military families at the
installation on childcare matters both on-installation and
off-installation.
(B) Work with the commander of the installation in order to
seek to ensure that the childcare development centers at the
installation, together with any other available childcare
options on or in the vicinity of the installation--
(i) provide a quality of care (including a caregiver-to-
child ratio) commensurate with best practices of private
providers of childcare services; and
(ii) are responsive to the childcare needs of members
stationed at the installation and their families.
(C) Work with private providers of childcare services in
the vicinity of the installation in order to---
(i) track vacancies in the childcare facilities of such
providers;
(ii) seek to obtain favorable prices for the use of such
services by members stationed at the installation; and
(iii) otherwise ease the use of such services by such
members.
(D) Such other duties as the Secretary of the military
department concerned shall specify.

amendment no. 40 offered by mr. meadows of north carolina

At the end of subtitle F of title V, insert the following
new section:

SEC. 5__. AWARD OF VIETNAM SERVICE MEDAL TO VETERANS WHO
PARTICIPATED IN MAYAGUEZ RESCUE OPERATION.

(a) Award Authorized.--The Secretary of the military
department concerned shall, upon the application by or on
behalf of an individual who is an eligible veteran, award
that individual the Vietnam Service Medal, notwithstanding
any otherwise applicable requirements for the award of that
medal. Any such award shall be made in lieu of any Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal awarded the individual for the
individual's participation in the Mayaguez rescue operation.
(b) Treatment of Deceased Veterans.--In the case of a
veteran who is deceased, the application described in
subsection (a) may be submitted by the next of kin of the
veteran.
(c) Eligible Veteran.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``eligible veteran'' means a veteran of the Armed
Forces--
(1) who was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
for participation in military operations known as the
Mayaguez rescue operation of May 12-15, 1975; or
(2) who participated in such operation.

amendment no. 41 offered by mr. lance of new jersey

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

SEC. 5__. AWARD OF MEDALS OR OTHER COMMENDATIONS TO HANDLERS
OF MILITARY WORKING DOGS AND MILITARY WORKING
DOGS.

(a) Program of Award Required.--Each Secretary of a
military department shall carry out a program to provide for
the award of one or more medals or other commendations to
handlers of military working dogs, and to military working
dogs, under the jurisdiction of such Secretary to recognize
valor or meritorious achievement by such handlers and dogs.
(b) Medal and Commendations.--Any medal or commendation
awarded pursuant to a program under subsection (a) shall be
of such design, and include such elements, as the Secretary
of the military department concerned shall specify.
(c) Regulations.--Medals and commendations shall be awarded
under programs under subsection (a) in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense for
purposes of this section.

amendment no. 42 offered by mr. graves of louisiana

Page 170, after line 14, insert the following new section:

SEC. 564. ELIGIBILITY OF VETERANS OF OPERATION END SWEEP FOR
VIETNAM SERVICE MEDAL.

The Secretary of the military department concerned shall,
upon the application of an individual who is a veteran who
participated in Operation End Sweep, award that individual
the Vietnam Service Medal, notwithstanding any otherwise
applicable requirements for the award of that medal.

amendment no. 44 offered by mr. soto of florida

Page 170, after line 14, insert the following new section:

SEC. 564. EXPEDITED REPLACEMENT OF MILITARY DECORATIONS FOR
VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II AND THE KOREAN WAR.

Section 1135 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``When'' and inserting
``Subject to subsection (c), when'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection (c):
``(c) Recipients of Military Decorations for Service in
World War II or the Korean War.--If the recipient was awarded
the military decoration for which a replacement is requested
for service in World War II or the Korean War, the Secretary
concerned shall perform all actions described--
``(1) in subsection (b)(1) in not more than 180 days; and
``(2) in subsection (b)(2) in not more than 60 days.''.

amendment no. 45 offered by mr. heck of washington

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

SEC. 575. PROOF OF PERIOD OF MILITARY SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF
INTEREST RATE LIMITATION UNDER THE
SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT.

Section 207(b)(1) of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(50 U.S.C. 3937(b)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Proof of military service.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of a servicemember's termination or release from military
service, in order for an obligation or liability of the
servicemember to be subject to the interest rate limitation
in subsection (a), the servicemember shall provide to the
creditor written notice and a copy of--
``(i) the military orders calling the servicemember to
military service and any orders further extending military
service; or
``(ii) any other appropriate indicator of military service,
including a certified letter from a commanding officer.
``(B) Independent verification by creditor.--
``(i) In general.--Regardless of whether a servicemember
has provided to a creditor the written notice and
documentation under subparagraph (A), the creditor may use,
in lieu of such notice and documentation, information
retrieved from the Defense Manpower Database Center through
the creditor's normal business reviews of the Database Center
for purposes of obtaining information indicating that the
servicemember is on active duty.
``(ii) Safe harbor.--A creditor that uses the information
retrieved from the Defense Manpower Database Center under
clause (i) with respect to a servicemember has not failed to
treat the debt of the servicemember in accordance with
subsection (a) if--

``(I) such information indicates that, on the date the
creditor retrieves such information, the servicemember is not
on active duty; and
``(II) the creditor has not, as of such date, received the
written notice and documentation required under subparagraph
(A) with respect to the servicemember.''.

amendment no. 46 offered by ms. esty of connecticut

Page 175, after line 24, insert the following new section:

SEC. 575. REPORT REGARDING POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO
PROCESSING RETIREMENTS AND MEDICAL DISCHARGES.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall
issue a report to the congressional defense committees and
the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House
of Representatives regarding possible improvements to the
transition of members of the Armed Forces to veteran status.
(b) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall
address the following:
(1) Feasibility of requiring members of the Armed Forces to
apply for benefits administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs before such members complete discharge from the Armed
Forces.
(2) Feasibility of requiring members of the Armed Forces to
undergo compensation and pension examinations (to be
administered by the Secretary of Defense) for purposes of
obtaining benefits described in paragraph (1) before such
members complete discharge from active duty in the Armed
Forces.
(3) Possible improvements to the timeliness of the process
for transitioning members who undergo medical discharge to
care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

amendment no. 47 offered by mr. mast of florida

Page 175, after line 24, insert the following:

SEC. 5__. ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATION OATH FOR MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States Armed Forces is the largest, all-
volunteer military force in the world, yet less than one
percent of the American population serves in the Armed
Forces.

[[Page H5822]]

(2) Each branch of the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marine Corps, Coast Guard) instills in its members a sense of
duty and obligation to the United States, their branch of
service, and their comrades-in-arms.
(3) The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that
approximately 20 veterans of the Armed Forces commit suicide
each day and a veteran's risk of suicide is 21 percent higher
compared to an adult who has not served in the Armed Forces.
(4) The Department of Veterans Affairs is aggressively
undertaking measures to prevent these tragic outcomes, yet
suicide rates among veterans remain unacceptably high.
(5) Upon enlistment or appointment in the Armed Forces, a
new member is obligated to take an oath of office or oath of
enlistment.
(6) Most members of the Armed Forces view this oath not as
an imposition, but as a promise that they are bound to
fulfill.
(b) Establishment of Separation Oath.--Section 502 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and,
in such subsection, by striking ``The oath'' and inserting
``An oath established by this section''; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection (b):
``(b) Separation Oath.--Prior to retirement or other
separation from the armed forces, other than separation
pursuant to the sentence of a court-martial, a member of an
armed force may take the following oath:
`` `I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, recognizing that my oath to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, has involved me
and my fellow members in experiences that few persons, other
than our peers, can understand, do solemnly swear (or affirm)
to continue to be the keeper of my brothers- and sisters-in-
arms and protector of the United States and the Constitution;
to preserve the values I have learned; to maintain my body
and my mind; and to not bring harm to myself without speaking
to my fellow veterans first. I take this oath freely and
without purpose of evasion, so help me God.' ''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Section heading.--The heading of section 502 of title
10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 502. Enlistment oath and separation oath: who may
administer''.

(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 31 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 502 and
inserting the following new item:

``502. Enlistment oath and separation oath: who may administer.''.

amendment no. 48 offered by mrs. watson coleman of new jersey

Page 175, after line 24, insert the following new section:

SEC. 575. EXTENSION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT REGARDING
DIVERSITY IN MILITARY LEADERSHIP.

Section 115a(g) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``2017'' and inserting ``2022''.
Strike section 1051(a)(2) (page 376, lines 4 through 10).
Page 396, after line 4, insert the following:4
(5) Annual defense manpower requirements report.--By
inserting after paragraph (64), as added by paragraph (4),
the following new paragraph:
``(65) Section 115a.''.

amendment no. 50 offered by mr. donovan of new york

Page 185, after line 19, insert the following new section:

SEC. 605. REEVALUATION OF BAH FOR THE MILITARY HOUSING AREA
INCLUDING STATEN ISLAND.

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense, using the most recent
data available to the Secretary, shall reevaluate the basic
housing allowance prescribed under section 403(b) of title
37, United States Code, for the military housing area that
includes Staten Island, New York.

amendment no. 51 offered by mr. trott of michigan

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

SEC. 619. IMPROVED EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES AND VETERANS.

(a) Improved Employment Skills Verification.--Section
1143(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary of
Defense''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) In order to improve the accuracy and completeness of
a certification or verification of job skills and experience
required by paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast
Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy
shall--
``(A) establish a database to record all training performed
by members of the armed forces that may have application to
employment in the civilian sector; and
``(B) make unclassified information regarding such
information available to States and other potential employers
referred to in subsection (c) so that State and other
entities may allow military training to satisfy licensing or
certification requirements to engage in a civilian
profession.''.
(b) Improved Accuracy of Certificates of Training and
Skills.--Section 1143(a) of title 10, United States Code, is
further amended by inserting after paragraph (2), as added by
subsection (a), the following new paragraph:
``(3) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is
not operating as a service in the Navy shall ensure that a
certification or verification of job skills and experience
required by paragraph (1) is rendered in such a way that
States and other potential employers can confirm the accuracy
and authenticity of the certification or verification.''.
(c) Improved Responsiveness to Certification Requests.--
Section 1143(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``For the purpose''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) A State may use a certification or verification of
job skills and experience provided to a member of the armed
forces under subsection (a) and request the Department of
Defense or the Coast Guard, as the case may be, to confirm
the accuracy and authenticity of the certification or
verification. A response confirming or denying the
information shall be provided within five business days.''.
(d) Improved Notice to Members.--Section 1142(b)(4)(A) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting before
the semicolon the following: ``, including State-submitted
and approved lists of military training and skills that
satisfy occupational certifications and licenses''.

amendment no. 52 offered by mr. courtney of connecticut

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

SEC. 704. EXPANSION OF SEXUAL TRAUMA COUNSELING AND TREATMENT
FOR MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS.

Section 1720D(a)(2)(A) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``on active duty''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``that was suffered by the member while serving on
active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty
training.''.

amendment no. 53 offered by mr. schneider of illinois

At the end of subtitle B of title VII in division A, add
the following:

SEC. ___. TRAINING REQUIREMENT FOR HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS
PRESCRIBING OPIOIDS FOR TREATMENT OF PAIN IN
THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure
that to serve as a health care professional in the Department
of Defense as an individual who is authorized to prescribe or
otherwise dispense opioids for the treatment of pain, the
professional (other than a pharmacist) must comply with the
12-hour training requirement of paragraph (2) at least once
during each 3-year period or be licensed in a State that
requires equivalent (or greater) training described in
paragraph (2) with respect to the prescribing or dispensing
of opioids for the treatment of pain.
(2) The training requirement of this paragraph is that the
professional has completed not less than 12 hours of training
(through classroom situations, seminars at professional
society meetings, electronic communications, or otherwise)
with respect to--
(A) pain management treatment guidelines and best
practices;
(B) early detection of opioid addiction; and
(C) the treatment and management of opioid-dependent
patients,
that is provided by the American Society of Addiction
Medicine, the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, the
American Medical Association, the American Osteopathic
Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the
American Academy of Pain Management, the American Pain
Society, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American
Board of Pain Medicine, the American Society of
Interventional Pain Physicians, or any other organization
that the Secretary of Defense determines is appropriate for
purposes of this subsection.
(b) Establishment of Training Modules.--(1) The Secretary
of Defense shall establish or support the establishment of
one or more training modules to be used to meet the training
requirement under subsection (a).
(2) To be eligible to receive support under paragraph (1),
an entity shall be--
(A) one of the organizations listed in paragraph (2) of
subsection (a); or
(B) any other organization that the Secretary determines is
appropriate to provide training under such subsection.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 440, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Smith) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc package consists of a
variety of amendments from Members from both sides of the aisle. I
believe that they deserve the support of the House. I recommend
adoption of the en bloc package.
I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5823]]

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman. I
support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Smucker) having assumed the chair, Mr. Marshall, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2810) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military activities
of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________